Chen Yi-Ying, Assefa Yibeltal
School of Public Health, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10885-8.
The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread to all corners of the world since its emergence in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. The disease burden has been heterogeneous across regions of the world, with Americas leading in cumulative cases and deaths, followed by Europe, Southeast Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, Africa and Western Pacific. Initial responses to COVID-19 also varied between governments, ranging from proactive containment to delayed intervention. Understanding these variabilities allow high burden countries to learn from low burden countries on ways to create more sustainable response plans in the future.
This study used a mixed-methods approach to perform cross-country comparisons of pandemic responses in the United States (US), Brazil, Germany, Australia, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand, Italy and China. These countries were selected based on their income level, relative COVID-19 burden and geographic location. To rationalize the epidemiological variability, a list of 14 indicators was established to assess the countries' preparedness, actual response, and socioeconomic and demographic profile in the context of COVID-19.
As of 1 April 2021, the US had the highest cases per million out of the nine countries, followed by Brazil, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and China. Meanwhile, Italy ranked first out of the nine countries' total deaths per million, followed by the US, Brazil, Germany, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, China and Thailand. The epidemiological differences between these countries could be explained by nine indicators, and they were 1) leadership, governance and coordination of response, 2) communication, 3) community engagement, 4) multisectoral actions, 5) public health capacity, 6) universal health coverage, 7) medical services and hospital capacity, 8) demography and 9) burden of non-communicable diseases.
The COVID-19 pandemic manifests varied outcomes due to differences in countries' vulnerability, preparedness and response. Our study rationalizes why South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia and China performed better than the US, Italy and Brazil. By identifying the strengths of low burden countries and weaknesses of hotspot countries, we elucidate factors constituting an effective pandemic response that can be adopted by leaders in preparation for re-emerging public health threats.
2019年12月新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)在中国武汉出现后迅速蔓延至全球各个角落。全球各地区的疾病负担存在差异,美洲地区的累计病例和死亡人数领先,其次是欧洲、东南亚、东地中海、非洲和西太平洋地区。各国政府对COVID-19的初始应对措施也各不相同,从积极防控到延迟干预。了解这些差异有助于高负担国家向低负担国家学习,以便未来制定更具可持续性的应对计划。
本研究采用混合方法对美国、巴西、德国、澳大利亚、韩国、泰国、新西兰、意大利和中国这几个国家的疫情应对措施进行跨国比较。这些国家是根据其收入水平、相对COVID-19负担和地理位置选定的。为了合理说明流行病学差异,建立了一份包含14项指标的清单,以评估各国在COVID-19背景下的准备情况、实际应对措施以及社会经济和人口概况。
截至2021年4月1日,在这九个国家中,美国的每百万人口病例数最高,其次是巴西、意大利、德国、韩国、澳大利亚、新西兰、泰国和中国。同时,意大利在九个国家的每百万人口总死亡数中排名第一,其次是美国、巴西、德国、澳大利亚、韩国、新西兰、中国和泰国。这些国家之间的流行病学差异可以由九项指标来解释,它们分别是:1)应对措施的领导、治理和协调;2)沟通;3)社区参与;4)多部门行动;5)公共卫生能力;6)全民健康覆盖;7)医疗服务和医院能力;8)人口统计学;9)非传染性疾病负担。
由于各国的脆弱性、准备情况和应对措施不同,COVID-19大流行呈现出不同的结果。我们的研究解释了为什么韩国、新西兰、泰国、澳大利亚和中国比美国、意大利和巴西表现更好。通过确定低负担国家的优势和热点国家的弱点,我们阐明了构成有效疫情应对措施的因素,可供各国领导人在应对再次出现的公共卫生威胁时采用。