An integrated view on society readiness and initial reaction to COVID-19: A study across European countries

Defining and identifying the critical elements of operational readiness for public health emergency events: a rapid scoping review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 showed that countries must strengthen their operational readiness (OPR) capabilities to respond to an imminent pandemic threat rapidly and proactively. We conducted a rapid scoping evidence review to understand the definition and critical elements of OPR against five core sub-systems of a new framework to strengthen the global architecture for Health Emergency Preparedness Response and Resilience (HEPR).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, targeted repositories, websites, and grey literature databases for publications between 1 January 2010 and 29 September 2021 in English, German, French or Afrikaans. Included sources were of any study design, reporting OPR, defined as immediate actions taken in the presence of an imminent threat, from groups who led or responded to a specified health emergency. We used prespecified and tested methods to screen and select sources, extract data, assess credibility and analyse results against the HEPR framework.

RESULTS

Of 7005 sources reviewed, 79 met the eligibility criteria, including 54 peer-reviewed publications. The majority were descriptive reports (28%) and qualitative analyses (30%) from early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Definitions of OPR varied while nine articles explicitly used the term 'readiness', others classified OPR as part of preparedness or response. Applying our working OPR definition across all sources, we identified OPR actions within all five HEPR subsystems. These included resource prepositioning for early detection, data sharing, tailored communication and interventions, augmented staffing, timely supply procurement, availability and strategic dissemination of medical countermeasures, leadership, comprehensive risk assessment and resource allocation supported by relevant legislation. We identified gaps related to OPR for research and technology-enabled manufacturing platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

OPR is in an early stage of adoption. Establishing a consistent and explicit framework for OPRs within the context of existing global legal and policy frameworks can foster coherence and guide evidence-based policy and practice improvements in health emergency management.

COVID-19 resilience index in European Union countries based on their risk and readiness scale

Addressing risks and pandemics at a country level is a complex task that requires transdisciplinary approaches. The paper aims to identify groups of the European Union countries characterized by a similar COVID-19 Resilience Index (CRI). Developed in the paper CRI index reflects the countries' COVID-19 risk and their readiness for a crisis situation, including a pandemic. Moreover, the study detects the factors that significantly differentiate the distinguished groups. According to our research, Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, and Poland have the lowest COVID-19 Resilience Index score, with Croatia, Greece, Czechia, and Slovakia following close. At the same time, Ireland and Scandinavian countries occupy the top of the leader board, followed by Luxemburg. The Kruskal-Wallis test results indicate four COVID-19 risk indicators that significantly differentiate the countries in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the significant factors are not only COVID-19-related factors, i.e., the changes in residential human mobility, the stringency of anti-COVID-19 policy, but also strictly environmental factors, namely pollution and material footprint. It indicates that the most critical global environmental issues might be crucial in the phase of a future pandemic. Moreover, we detect eight readiness factors that significantly differentiate the analysed country groups. Among the significant factors are the economic indicators such as GDP per capita and labour markets, the governance indicators such as Rule of Law, Access to Information, Implementation and Adaptability measures, and social indicators such as Tertiary Attainment and Research, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

COVID - 19 in two dialysis centers situated in two neighbouring states of the Western Balkans

BACKGROUND

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Serbia are countries in the Western Balkans that share parts of their social and political legacy from the former Yugoslavia, such as their health care system and the fact that they are not members of European Union. There are very scarce data on COVID - 19 pandemic from this region when compared to other parts of the world and even less is known about its impact on the provision of renal care or differences between countries in the Western Balkans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational prospective study was conducted in two regional renal centres in BiH and Serbia, during the COVID - 19 pandemic. We obtained demographic and epidemiological data, clinical course and outcomes of dialysis and transplant patients with COVID - 19 in both units. Data were collected a via questionnaire for two consecutive time periods: February - June 2020 with a total number of 767 dialysis and transplant patients in the two centres, and July - December 2020 with a total number of 749 studied patients, corresponding to two of the largest waves of the pandemic in our region. Departmental policies and infection control measures in both units were also recorded and compared.

RESULTS

For a period of 11 months, from February to December 2020, 82 patients on in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD), 11 peritoneal dialysis patients and 25 transplant patients who tested positive for COVID-19. In the first study period, the incidence of COVID - 19 positive in Tuzla was 1.3% among ICHD patients, and there were no positive peritoneal dialysis patients, or any transplant patients who tested positive. The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly higher in both centres in the second time period, which corresponds to the incidence in general population. Total deaths of COVID-19 positive patients was 0% in Tuzla and 45.5% in Niš during first, and 16.7% in Tuzla and 23.4% in Niš during the second period. There were notable differences in the national and local/departmental approach to the pandemic between the two centres.

CONCLUSION

There was poor survival overall when compared to other regions of Europe. We suggest that this reflects the lack of preparedness of both of our medical systems for such situations. In addition, we describe important differences in outcome between the two centres. We emphasize the importance of preventative measures and infection control and highlight the importance of preparedness.

Identifying the preparedness components in COVID-19: Systematic literature review

In 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic posed a major challenge to the world. Since the world is constantly exposed to communicable diseases, comprehensive preparedness of countries is required. Therefore, the present systematic review is aimed at identifying the preparedness components in COVID-19. In this systematic literature review, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Science Direct, Iran Medex, Magiran, and Scientific Information Database were searched from 2019 to 2021 to identify preparedness components in COVID-19. Thematic content analysis method was employed for data analysis. Out of 11,126 journals retrieved from searches, 45 studies were included for data analysis. Based on the findings, the components of COVID-19 preparedness were identified and discussed in three categories: governance with three subcategories of characteristics, responsibilities, and rules and regulations; society with two subcategories of culture and resilience; and services with three subcategories of managed services, advanced technology, and prepared health services. Among these, the governance and its subcategories had the highest frequency in studies. Considering the need to prepare for the next pandemic, countries should create clear and coherent structures and responsibilities for crisis preparedness through legal mechanisms, strengthening the infrastructure of the health system, coordination between organizations through analysis and identification of stakeholders, culture building and attracting social participation, and service management for an effective response.

The impact of COVID-19 on service delivery systems: evidence from a survey of United States refugee resettlement agencies

BACKGROUND

Key to the US refugee resettlement effort is the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who receive, place, and provide transitional programs and referrals to new and recently resettled refugees. Yet only one rapid assessment study thus far examined the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery systems of US refugee resettlement agencies. This exploratory study describes the capability and preparedness of US refugee resettlement agencies to provide services and care to clients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Using both telephone interviews and an internet survey, we assessed the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, agency capacity, and preparedness of 101 US refugee resettlement agencies. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the dataset, while chi-square (χ²) tests were used to examine relationships by resettlement agency size (number of employees in each agency).

RESULTS

Despite a temporary pause on refugee admissions, restrictive stay-at-home orders, and refugee travel restrictions, the majority of responding US refugee resettlement agencies continued to provide specialized services and care to resettled refugees and other immigrants. Among the more important findings was that agencies that continued to provide refugee services and care onsite in their existing facilities or office rather than moving such services offsite differed by agency size [χ² (9.494, n = 101), p < 0.05]. Almost all agencies (93.1%) strongly agreed or agreed that staff have timely access to COVID-19 information. Most of the refugee services were provided offsite (n = 72 agencies, some with multiple offices across the US).

CONCLUSIONS

US refugee resettlement agencies continued to perform admirably despite a lack of funding. Future research is underway to obtain a more balanced understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on practice or operations.

Social Cohesion and Community Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Northern Romania

The COVID-19 pandemic and the lock-down have highlighted the growing awareness of the need to involve the population in solving problems that directly affect the existence and trajectory of the life of the individual and civil society in the local, national, and regional context. The article aims both to analyze the reaction of formal and informal civil society in a context of major crisis and to analyze how the population perceives the involvement of civil society at the level of a county in Romania and its county seat city. The present sociological diagnosis used data that were collected through an online survey at the beginning of May 2020 among the population of Suceava County. It was sought to identify how the reaction of civil society was perceived and how it was mobilized, as well as how the mass media contributed to reducing the effects of the pandemic. After the elimination phase of non-compliant responses, the volume of the sample included a total of 1231 people. The results of the study indicate that this pandemic context, which manifested as a major crisis, also had positive effects in the sense of mobilizing latent but extensive energies at the local level, whose manifestation contributed to diminishing and limiting the effects of the sanitary crisis the county faced. The media, as a component of civil society, has managed to mobilize important segments of the population, both in quarantined localities and in other localities in Suceava County and Moldova. The COVID-19 crisis tested the social cohesion and resilience of communities and offered perhaps one of the most remarkable lessons of solidarity in the post-December period, both locally and nationally. Although the perception of Romanians on the role of civil society would rather be part of a culture of individualism, in extreme situations it was found that its activity has never been more important.