Deakin University, School of Health and Social Development, Burwood, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Centre for Innovation in Infectious Disease and Immunology Research (CIIDIR), Geelong, Australia.
Deakin University Geelong, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research in the Institute for Health Transformation, Australia; Deakin University, Centre for Innovation in Infectious Disease and Immunology Research (CIIDIR), Geelong, Australia.
J Infect Public Health. 2023 Dec;16(12):2017-2025. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.10.017. Epub 2023 Oct 17.
This scoping review aims to identify and critically review quarantine preparedness in New Zealand and Australia pre-COVID-19 by categorising, comparing, and evaluating quarantine information contained within pandemic plans and exercises from both countries.
Parliamentary websites, including Archives New Zealand, ParlInfo and Google Scholar, were searched for publicly available plans and exercise reports from 2002 to 2019. Data were extracted from documents meeting the inclusion criteria and analysed using directive content analysis based on the Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework categories. This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, which guided the data extraction, analysis, and presentation of results.
A total of 16 documents mentioned quarantine and were included in this scoping review. The emphasis and level of detail regarding quarantine characteristics and capabilities varied between New Zealand's five documents (one plan and four exercise reports) and Australia's 11 documents (one Influenza pandemic plan, eight state plans and two exercise reports). New Zealand's plan forecasted the need for both voluntary quarantine at home and involuntary quarantine in facilities for incoming travellers, whilst the Australian Influenza pandemic plan and state plans primarily considered voluntary quarantine within private residences. Capability gaps identified during exercises were not consistently incorporated into revised plans. Some government documents containing information on quarantine may not be publicly available, limiting the available evidence for this review.
This scoping review highlights the need to incorporate a range of possible quarantine options into plans and preparation activities to test and identify gaps in government and responsible agencies' capabilities. Pandemic preparedness will be strengthened by incorporating quarantine scale and duration variables into exercise scenarios.
本范围综述旨在通过对来自新西兰和澳大利亚两国的大流行计划和演习中包含的检疫信息进行分类、比较和评估，来确定和批判性地回顾 COVID-19 之前两国的检疫准备情况。
在议会网站（包括新西兰档案馆、 ParlInfo 和 Google Scholar）上搜索了 2002 年至 2019 年公开的计划和演习报告。从符合纳入标准的文件中提取数据，并根据澳大利亚灾害准备框架类别使用指令内容分析进行分析。本范围综述遵循 Joanna Briggs 研究所的范围综述方法，指导数据提取、分析和结果呈现。
共有 16 份文件提到了检疫，并纳入了本范围综述。新西兰的五份文件（一份计划和四份演习报告）和澳大利亚的 11 份文件（一份流感大流行计划、八份州计划和两份演习报告）对检疫特征和能力的重视程度和详细程度有所不同。新西兰的计划预测，入境旅客需要在家中自愿检疫和在设施中强制检疫，而澳大利亚的流感大流行计划和州计划主要考虑在私人住宅中自愿检疫。演习中发现的能力差距并未一致纳入修订计划。一些包含检疫信息的政府文件可能未公开，限制了本综述的可用证据。
本范围综述强调了将各种可能的检疫选择纳入计划和准备活动的必要性，以测试和确定政府和负责机构能力方面的差距。通过将检疫规模和持续时间变量纳入演习情景，大流行准备工作将得到加强。
