Suppr超能文献

新冠疫情的异质性与各国应对措施:一项解释性混合方法研究。

The heterogeneity of the COVID-19 pandemic and national responses: an explanatory mixed-methods study.

作者信息

Chen Yi-Ying, Assefa Yibeltal

机构信息

School of Public Health, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10885-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

1
The heterogeneity of the COVID-19 pandemic and national responses: an explanatory mixed-methods study.
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10885-8.
3
COVID-19 in Germany and China: mitigation versus elimination strategy.
Glob Health Action. 2021 Jan 1;14(1):1875601. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.1875601.
6
Comparison of Face-Touching Behaviors Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2016924. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.16924.
7
AIDS and sex tourism.
AIDS Soc. 1992 Oct-Nov;4(1):1, 8.
8
COVID-19: A tale of two pandemics across the Asia Pacific region.
Paediatr Respir Rev. 2020 Sep;35:75-80. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2020.06.018. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
10
SARS-CoV-2 Wave Two Surveillance in East Asia and the Pacific: Longitudinal Trend Analysis.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 1;23(2):e25454. doi: 10.2196/25454.

引用本文的文献

3
COVID-19 Policy Response Analysis: A Canadian Perspective.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jun 17;21(6):787. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21060787.
5
COVID-19 vaccination and governance in the case of low, middle and high-income countries.
BMC Public Health. 2023 Jun 5;23(1):1073. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15975-3.
7
Environmental health, COVID-19, and the syndemic: internal medicine facing the challenge.
Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Nov;17(8):2187-2198. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-03107-5. Epub 2022 Oct 1.
8
Impact of Covid-19 on the global orthopaedic research output.
Front Surg. 2022 Jul 28;9:962844. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.962844. eCollection 2022.
9
COVID-19 collaborative modelling for policy response in the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022 Dec;29:100563. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100563. Epub 2022 Aug 11.

本文引用的文献

1
Europe's Covid-19 outliers: German, Austrian and Swiss policy responses during the early stages of the 2020 pandemic.
Health Policy Technol. 2020 Dec;9(4):405-418. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.09.003. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
2
Fragmented health systems in COVID-19: rectifying the misalignment between global health security and universal health coverage.
Lancet. 2021 Jan 2;397(10268):61-67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32228-5. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
5
China's successful control of COVID-19.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Nov;20(11):1240-1241. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30800-8. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
6
Learning from past pandemic governance: Early response and Public-Private Partnerships in testing of COVID-19 in South Korea.
World Dev. 2021 Jan;137:105198. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105198. Epub 2020 Sep 18.
7
Cross-Country Comparisons of Covid-19: Policy, Politics and the Price of Life.
Environ Resour Econ (Dordr). 2020;76(4):525-551. doi: 10.1007/s10640-020-00466-5. Epub 2020 Aug 4.
8
Lesson-Drawing from New Zealand and Covid-19: The Need for Anticipatory Policy Making.
Polit Q. 2020 Jul-Sep;91(3):561-570. doi: 10.1111/1467-923X.12893. Epub 2020 Aug 12.
9
COVID-19 Pandemic and Burden of Non-Communicable Diseases: An Ecological Study on Data of 185 Countries.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Sep;29(9):105089. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105089. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
10
Making sense of crisis: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership in response to COVID-19.
Am Psychol. 2021 Apr;76(3):462-474. doi: 10.1037/amp0000715. Epub 2020 Aug 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验