The Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Mar 22;19(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00702-4.
This paper critically discusses the use and merits of global indices, in particular, the Global Health Security Index (GHSI; Cameron et al. https://www.ghsindex.org/#l-section--map ) in times of an imminent crisis, such as the current pandemic. This index ranked 195 countries according to their expected preparedness in the case of a pandemic or other biological threat. The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic provides the background to compare each country's predicted performance from the GHSI with the actual performance. In general, there is an inverted relation between predicted versus actual performance, i.e. the predicted top performers are among those that are the worst hit. Obviously, this reflects poorly on the potential policy uses of this index in imminent crisis management.
The paper analyses the GHSI and identifies why it may have struggled to predict actual pandemic preparedness as evidenced by the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper also uses two different data sets, one from the Worldmeter on the spread of the Covid-19 pandemics, and the other from the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, to draw comparisons between the actual introduction of pandemic response policies and the corresponding death rate in 29 selected countries.
This paper analyses the reasons for the poor match between prediction and reality in the index, and mentions six general observations applying to global indices in this respect. These observations are based on methodological and conceptual analyses. The level of abstraction in these global indices builds uncertainties upon uncertainties and hides implicit value assumptions, which potentially removes them from the policy needs on the ground.
From the analysis, the question is raised if the policy community might have better tools for decision-making in a pandemic. On the basis of data from the INGSA Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, and with backing in studies from social psychology and philosophy of science, some simple heuristics are suggested, which may be more useful than a global index.
本文批判性地讨论了全球指标的使用和优点,特别是在当前大流行等迫在眉睫的危机时期,全球卫生安全指数(GHSI;Cameron 等人,https://www.ghsindex.org/#l-section--map)的使用和优点。该指数根据各国在大流行或其他生物威胁情况下的预期准备情况,对 195 个国家进行了排名。2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行提供了背景,可将每个国家的预测表现与 GHSI 进行比较。一般来说,预测表现与实际表现之间存在倒置关系,即预测的表现最佳者属于受灾最严重的国家之列。显然,这反映出该指数在迫在眉睫的危机管理中潜在的政策用途不佳。
本文分析了 GHSI,并确定了为什么它可能难以预测实际的大流行准备情况,正如 COVID-19 大流行所证明的那样。本文还使用了两个不同的数据集,一个来自 Worldmeter 的 COVID-19 大流行传播数据,另一个来自国际政府科学咨询网络(INGSA)证据到政策跟踪器,以比较 29 个选定国家实际引入大流行应对政策和相应的死亡率。
本文分析了该指数在预测和现实之间存在较差匹配的原因,并提到了在这方面适用于全球指数的六个一般观察结果。这些观察结果基于方法和概念分析。这些全球指数的抽象程度在不确定性之上增加了不确定性,并隐藏了隐含的价值假设,这可能使它们脱离了实地的政策需求。
从分析中可以提出这样一个问题,即在大流行期间,政策界是否可能有更好的决策工具。根据 INGSA 证据到政策跟踪器的数据,并在社会心理学和科学哲学研究的支持下,本文提出了一些简单的启发式方法,这些方法可能比全球指数更有用。