Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis chapter presents evaluation findings based on cost‐effectiveness analyses that dramatically changed perinatal HIV prevention policies across the nation.

The Washington metropolitan area was closely examined to understand how these regional preparedness structures have been organized, implemented, and governed, as well as to assess the likely impact of such regional structures on public health preparedness and public health systems more generally. It was found that no single formal regional structure for the public health system exists in the Washington metropolitan area, although the region is designated by the Department of Homeland Security as the National Capital Region (NCR). In fact, the vast majority of preparedness planning and response activities in this area are the result of voluntary self-organization through both governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Some interviewed felt that this was an optimal arrangement, as personal relationships prove crucial in responding to a public health emergency and an informal response is often more timely than a formal response. The biggest challenge for public health preparedness in the NCR is incorporating all federal government agencies in the area in NCR preparedness planning.

Public health authorities have adopted entry screening and subsequent restrictions on travelers from Ebola-affected West African countries as a strategy to prevent importation of Ebola virus disease (EVD) cases. We analyzed international, federal, and state policies—principally based on the policy documents themselves and media reports—to evaluate policy variability. We employed means-ends fit analysis to elucidate policy objectives. We found substantial variation in the specific approaches favored by WHO, CDC, and various American states. Several US states impose compulsory quarantine on a broader range of travelers or require more extensive monitoring than recommended by CDC or WHO. Observed differences likely partially resulted from different actors having different policy goals—particularly the federal government having to balance foreign policy objectives less salient to states. Further, some state-level variation appears to be motivated by short-term political goals. We propose recommendations to improve future policies, which include the following: (1) actors should explicitly clarify their objectives, (2) legal authority should be modernized and clarified, and (3) the federal government should consider preempting state approaches that imperil its goals.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an avalanche of scientific studies, drawing on many different types of data. However, studies addressing the effectiveness of government actions against COVID-19, especially non-pharmaceutical interventions, often exhibit data problems that threaten the validity of their results. This review is thus intended to help epidemiologists and other researchers identify a set of data issues that, in our view, must be addressed in order for their work to be credible. We further intend to help journal editors and peer reviewers when evaluating studies, to apprise policy-makers, journalists, and other research consumers about the strengths and weaknesses of published studies, and to inform the wider debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 research. RESULTS: To this end, we describe common challenges in the collection, reporting, and use of epidemiologic, policy, and other data, including completeness and representativeness of outcomes data; their comparability over time and among jurisdictions; the adequacy of policy variables and data on intermediate outcomes such as mobility and mask use; and a mismatch between level of intervention and outcome variables. We urge researchers to think critically about potential problems with the COVID-19 data sources over the specific time periods and particular locations they have chosen to analyze, and to choose not only appropriate study designs but also to conduct appropriate checks and sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact(s) of potential threats on study findings. CONCLUSIONS: In an effort to encourage high quality research, we provide recommendations on how to address the issues we identify. Our first recommendation is for researchers to choose an appropriate design (and the data it requires). This review describes considerations and issues in order to identify the strongest analytical designs and demonstrates how interrupted time-series and comparative longitudinal studies can be particularly useful. Furthermore, we ...