Global Health Security Agenda: Joint External Evaluation and Legislation—A 1-Year Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Forzley
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Joint External Evaluation ◽  
Global Health Security Agenda

scholarly journals Joint external evaluation process: bringing multiple sectors together for global health security

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. e857-e858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nirmal Kandel ◽  
Rajesh Sreedharan ◽  
Stella Chungong ◽  
Karen Sliter ◽  
Simo Nikkari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Joint External Evaluation

scholarly journals Military participation in health security: analysis of Joint External Evaluation mission reports and National Action Plans for Health Security

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett M. Forshey ◽  
Alexandra K. Woodward ◽  
Jose L. Sanchez ◽  
Stephanie R. Petzing
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Core Area ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Military Involvement ◽  
Core Areas ◽  
Joint External Evaluation

AbstractMilitaries across the world play an important but at times poorly defined and underappreciated role in global health security. For example, they are often called upon to support civilian authorities in humanitarian crises and to provide routine healthcare for civilians. Furthermore, military personnel are a unique population in a health security context, as they are highly mobile and often deploy to austere settings domestically and internationally, which may increase exposure to infectious diseases. Despite the role of militaries, few studies have systematically evaluated the involvement of militaries in global health security activities, including the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). To address this shortcoming, we analyzed Joint External Evaluation (JEE) mission reports (n=91) and National Action Plans for Health Security (n=11) that had been completed as of October 2019 (n=91) to determine the extent to which military organizations have been involved in the evaluation process, country military contributions to health security are accounted for, and specific recommendations are provided for the country’s military. For JEE reports, military involvement was highest for the “Respond” core area (73%) but much lower for the Prevent (36%) and Detect (30%) core areas. Similarly, 73% of NAPHS documents mentioned military involvement in the Respond core area, compared to 27% and 36% for Prevent and Detect, respectively. Additionally, only 26% of JEE reports provide recommendations for the military in any of the core areas. Our results indicate the need to more fully incorporate military roles and contributions into the GHSA framework and other health security activities in order to improve national capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats.

scholarly journals Global Health Security Preparedness and Response: An Analysis of the Relationship between Joint External Evaluation Scores and COVID-19 Response Performance

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050052
Author(s):  
Laura Nguyen ◽  
Morgan Sydney Brown ◽  
Alexia Couture ◽  
Sharanya Krishnan ◽  
Mays Shamout ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Kappa Statistics ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Emergency Operations ◽  
Response Capacity ◽  
Response Performance ◽  
Joint External Evaluation

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance and complexity of a country’s ability to effectively respond. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) assessment was launched in 2016 to assess a country’s ability to prevent, detect and respond to public health emergencies. We examined whether JEE indicators could be used to predict a country’s COVID-19 response performance to tailor a country’s support more effectively.DesignFrom April to August 2020, we conducted interviews with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention country offices that requested COVID-19 support and previously completed the JEE (version 1.0). We used an assessment tool, the ‘Emergency Response Capacity Tool’ (ERCT), to assess COVID-19 response performance. We analysed 28 ERCT indicators aligned with eight JEE indicators to assess concordance and discordance using strict agreement and weighted kappa statistics. Generalised estimating equation (GEE) models were used to generate predicted probabilities for ERCT scores using JEE scores as the independent model variable.ResultsTwenty-three countries met inclusion criteria. Of the 163 indicators analysed, 42.3% of JEE and ERCT scores were in agreement (p value=0.02). The JEE indicator with the highest agreement (62%) was ‘Emergency Operations Center (EOC) operating procedures and plans’, while the lowest (16%) was ‘capacity to activate emergency operations’. Findings were consistent with weighted kappa statistics. In the GEE model, EOC operating procedures and plans had the highest predicted probability (0.86), while indicators concerning response strategy and coordination had the lowest (≤0.5).ConclusionsOverall, there was low agreement between JEE scores and COVID-19 response performance, with JEE scores often trending higher. JEE indicators concerning coordination and operations were least predictive of COVID-19 response performance, underscoring the importance of not inferring country response readiness from JEE scores alone. More in-depth country-specific investigations are likely needed to accurately estimate response capacity and tailor countries’ global health security activities.

scholarly journals An evaluation of the global health security agenda steering group governance interventions

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
N E DeShore ◽  
J A Johnson ◽  
P Malone ◽  
R Greenhill ◽  
W Wuenstal
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
System Performance ◽  
Health System Performance ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Governance Indicators ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Global Health Security Agenda

Abstract Background Member States lack of compliance with 2005 IHR implementation led to the launched of the Global Health Security Agenda. This research will provide an understanding of how the Global Health Security Agenda Steering Group (GHSA SG) governance interventions impact health system performance and global health security. This will enhance the understanding of a Steering Group's governance interventions in complex Global Health initiatives. Research questions: To what extent have GHSA SG governance interventions contributed towards enabling health system performance of WHO Member States? To what extent have GHSA SG governance interventions contributed towards the implementation of global health security among WHO Member States? Methods Correlational analysis using Spearman's rho examined the relationship between governance, health system performance and global health security variables at one point in time. A convenience non-probability sample consisting of eight WHO Member States was used. SPSS Statistics generated the bivariate correlation analyzes. Results Governance and health system performance analysis indicated a statistically significant strong positive effect size in 11 out of 18 and moderate positive effect size in the remaining seven out of 18 health system performance indicators. Governance and global health security analysis concluded three of the governance indicators had strong and moderate positive coefficients. Global health security variables demonstrated weak effects in the remaining three governance indicators. Conclusions This study presents a case for health systems embedding in global health security. Health system performance is only as effective at protecting populations when countries achieve core capacities of preparedness and response to global health threats. The associations provide stakeholders information about key characteristics of governance that influence health system performance and global health security implementation. Key messages This study provides an argument for the continued support of the GHSA 2024 Framework with implementation of global health security capabilities and meeting 2005 IHR requirements. The GHSA SG governance role remains profoundly important in establishing sustainable efforts internationally towards achieving the objectives of the GHSA in support of the 2005 IHR standards.

scholarly journals One Health contributions towards more effective and equitable approaches to health in low- and middle-income countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 372 (1725) ◽  
pp. 20160168 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Cleaveland ◽  
J. Sharp ◽  
B. Abela-Ridder ◽  
K. J. Allan ◽  
J. Buza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Human Health ◽  
One Health ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Emerging Zoonoses ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Global Health Security Agenda

Emerging zoonoses with pandemic potential are a stated priority for the global health security agenda, but endemic zoonoses also have a major societal impact in low-resource settings. Although many endemic zoonoses can be treated, timely diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of human cases is often challenging. Preventive ‘One Health’ interventions, e.g. interventions in animal populations that generate human health benefits, may provide a useful approach to overcoming some of these challenges. Effective strategies, such as animal vaccination, already exist for the prevention, control and elimination of many endemic zoonoses, including rabies, and several livestock zoonoses (e.g. brucellosis, leptospirosis, Q fever) that are important causes of human febrile illness and livestock productivity losses in low- and middle-income countries. We make the case that, for these diseases, One Health interventions have the potential to be more effective and generate more equitable benefits for human health and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas, than approaches that rely exclusively on treatment of human cases. We hypothesize that applying One Health interventions to tackle these health challenges will help to build trust, community engagement and cross-sectoral collaboration, which will in turn strengthen the capacity of fragile health systems to respond to the threat of emerging zoonoses and other future health challenges. One Health interventions thus have the potential to align the ongoing needs of disadvantaged communities with the concerns of the broader global community, providing a pragmatic and equitable approach to meeting the global goals for sustainable development and supporting the global health security agenda. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document