全球卫生安全指数及其在塑造国家COVID - 19应对能力中的作用:范围审查。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Annals of Global Health Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/aogh.4625
Danik Iga Prasiska, Kennedy Mensah Osei, Durga Datta Chapagain, Vasuki Rajaguru, Tae Hyun Kim, Sun Joo Kang, Sang Gyu Lee, Suk-Yong Jang, Whiejong Han
{"title":"全球卫生安全指数及其在塑造国家COVID - 19应对能力中的作用:范围审查。","authors":"Danik Iga Prasiska, Kennedy Mensah Osei, Durga Datta Chapagain, Vasuki Rajaguru, Tae Hyun Kim, Sun Joo Kang, Sang Gyu Lee, Suk-Yong Jang, Whiejong Han","doi":"10.5334/aogh.4625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Introduction:</i> Following the introduction of the Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic emerged as an unprecedented global health crisis, underscoring the need for robust health security frameworks and preparedness measures. This study conducts a scoping review to analyze the existing literature on the GHSI and assess national COVID‑19 responses across different countries. <i>Method:</i> A comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted for articles published from 2020 to 2024. Search terms included \"Global Health Security Index\" and terms related to COVID‑19. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), adjusted for cross‑sectional studies, was used for quality assessment. <i>Results:</i> A total of 3,243 studies were identified, of which 20 were finalized for data synthesis. Specific COVID‑19 parameters were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of each country's pandemic response capacity. Among the selected studies, 17 (85%) had a low risk of bias, while 3 (15%) had a medium risk. Countries' response capacities were categorized into five key parameters: detection, mortality, transmission, fatality, and recovery. Findings revealed significant discrepancies between GHSI scores and actual national responses, with some high‑scoring countries struggling to control the pandemic. This raises concerns about the GHSI's predictive reliability. <i>Conclusion:</i> The study highlights that the GHSI does not fully capture a country's capacity to respond effectively to COVID‑19. However, it remains a valuable tool for identifying gaps in pandemic preparedness. To enhance its relevance, the index should integrate a wider range of factors, including political leadership, governance, public health infrastructure, and socio‑cultural elements, which are crucial in managing public health emergencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48857,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Global Health","volume":"91 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11908420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Global Health Security Index and Its Role in Shaping National COVID‑19 Response Capacities: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Danik Iga Prasiska, Kennedy Mensah Osei, Durga Datta Chapagain, Vasuki Rajaguru, Tae Hyun Kim, Sun Joo Kang, Sang Gyu Lee, Suk-Yong Jang, Whiejong Han\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/aogh.4625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Introduction:</i> Following the introduction of the Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic emerged as an unprecedented global health crisis, underscoring the need for robust health security frameworks and preparedness measures. This study conducts a scoping review to analyze the existing literature on the GHSI and assess national COVID‑19 responses across different countries. <i>Method:</i> A comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted for articles published from 2020 to 2024. Search terms included \\\"Global Health Security Index\\\" and terms related to COVID‑19. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), adjusted for cross‑sectional studies, was used for quality assessment. <i>Results:</i> A total of 3,243 studies were identified, of which 20 were finalized for data synthesis. Specific COVID‑19 parameters were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of each country's pandemic response capacity. Among the selected studies, 17 (85%) had a low risk of bias, while 3 (15%) had a medium risk. Countries' response capacities were categorized into five key parameters: detection, mortality, transmission, fatality, and recovery. Findings revealed significant discrepancies between GHSI scores and actual national responses, with some high‑scoring countries struggling to control the pandemic. This raises concerns about the GHSI's predictive reliability. <i>Conclusion:</i> The study highlights that the GHSI does not fully capture a country's capacity to respond effectively to COVID‑19. However, it remains a valuable tool for identifying gaps in pandemic preparedness. To enhance its relevance, the index should integrate a wider range of factors, including political leadership, governance, public health infrastructure, and socio‑cultural elements, which are crucial in managing public health emergencies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Global Health\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11908420/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4625\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4625","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:在推出全球卫生安全指数(GHSI)之后,2019年冠状病毒病(COVID - 19)大流行成为一场前所未有的全球卫生危机,凸显了建立强有力的卫生安全框架和防范措施的必要性。本研究进行了范围审查,分析了关于全球安全指数的现有文献,并评估了不同国家的国家COVID - 19应对措施。方法:综合检索EBSCO、EMBASE、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science等电子数据库,检索2020 - 2024年发表的论文。搜索词包括“全球卫生安全指数”和与COVID - 19相关的术语。该研究遵循了系统评价首选报告项目和范围评价Meta分析(PRISMA - ScR)指南。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)对横断面研究进行调整,用于质量评估。结果:共确定3243项研究,其中20项最终完成数据综合。分析了具体的COVID - 19参数,以全面概述每个国家的大流行应对能力。在入选的研究中,17项(85%)偏倚风险较低,3项(15%)偏倚风险中等。各国的应对能力分为五个关键参数:发现、死亡率、传播、死亡率和恢复。调查结果显示,GHSI得分与实际国家反应之间存在显著差异,一些得分较高的国家难以控制这一流行病。这引起了人们对GHSI预测可靠性的担忧。结论:该研究强调,GHSI并未充分反映一个国家有效应对COVID - 19的能力。然而,它仍然是确定大流行防范差距的宝贵工具。为增强其相关性,该指数应纳入更广泛的因素,包括政治领导、治理、公共卫生基础设施和社会文化因素,这些因素对管理突发公共卫生事件至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Global Health Security Index and Its Role in Shaping National COVID‑19 Response Capacities: A Scoping Review.

Introduction: Following the introduction of the Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic emerged as an unprecedented global health crisis, underscoring the need for robust health security frameworks and preparedness measures. This study conducts a scoping review to analyze the existing literature on the GHSI and assess national COVID‑19 responses across different countries. Method: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted for articles published from 2020 to 2024. Search terms included "Global Health Security Index" and terms related to COVID‑19. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), adjusted for cross‑sectional studies, was used for quality assessment. Results: A total of 3,243 studies were identified, of which 20 were finalized for data synthesis. Specific COVID‑19 parameters were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of each country's pandemic response capacity. Among the selected studies, 17 (85%) had a low risk of bias, while 3 (15%) had a medium risk. Countries' response capacities were categorized into five key parameters: detection, mortality, transmission, fatality, and recovery. Findings revealed significant discrepancies between GHSI scores and actual national responses, with some high‑scoring countries struggling to control the pandemic. This raises concerns about the GHSI's predictive reliability. Conclusion: The study highlights that the GHSI does not fully capture a country's capacity to respond effectively to COVID‑19. However, it remains a valuable tool for identifying gaps in pandemic preparedness. To enhance its relevance, the index should integrate a wider range of factors, including political leadership, governance, public health infrastructure, and socio‑cultural elements, which are crucial in managing public health emergencies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Global Health
Annals of Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: ANNALS OF GLOBAL HEALTH is a peer-reviewed, open access journal focused on global health. The journal’s mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge of global health. Its goals are improve the health and well-being of all people, advance health equity and promote wise stewardship of the earth’s environment. The journal is published by the Boston College Global Public Health Program. It was founded in 1934 by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. It is a partner journal of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信