Nohrstedt Daniel, Baekkeskov Erik
Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Government and Center for Natural Disaster Science, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Lecturer in Public Policy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Disasters. 2018 Jan;42(1):41-61. doi: 10.1111/disa.12238. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
This study demonstrates that countries responded quite differently to calls for healthcare workers (HCWs) during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Using a new dataset on the scale and timing of national pledges and the deployment of HCWs to states experiencing outbreaks of the virus disease (principally, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone), it shows that few foreign nations deployed HCWs early, some made pledges but then fulfilled them slowly, and most sent no HCWs at all. To aid understanding of such national responses, the paper reviews five theoretical perspectives that offer potentially competing or complementary explanations of foreign government medical assistance for international public health emergencies. The study systematically validates that countries varied greatly in whether and when they addressed HCW deployment needs during the Ebola crisis of 2014, and offers suggestions for a theory-driven inquiry to elucidate the logics of foreign interventions in critical infectious disease epidemics.
本研究表明，在2014年西非埃博拉疫情期间，各国对医护人员需求呼吁的回应大不相同。利用一个关于各国承诺规模和时间以及向出现该病毒性疾病疫情的国家（主要是几内亚、利比里亚和塞拉利昂）部署医护人员的新数据集，研究表明，很少有外国在早期部署医护人员，一些国家做出了承诺但兑现缓慢，而大多数国家根本没有派遣医护人员。为了帮助理解这种国家层面的应对情况，本文回顾了五种理论观点，这些观点对外国政府针对国际公共卫生紧急情况的医疗援助提供了可能相互竞争或互补的解释。该研究系统地证实，在2014年埃博拉危机期间，各国在是否以及何时满足医护人员部署需求方面差异很大，并为基于理论的探究提出了建议，以阐明外国在重大传染病疫情中干预的逻辑。
