Department of Science and Education of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Health Management Research Center, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
PLoS One. 2024 Nov 7;19(11):e0313430. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313430. eCollection 2024.
States are key actors in global health governance, particularly in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. The emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases in recent decades pose profound challenges to global health security. As the first coronavirus pandemic, the COVID-19 caused significant damage worldwide, but responses and outcomes varied greatly among states. Using COVID-19 as an example, this study aims to compare the policies and measures implemented by different states during the COVID-19 pandemic and to synthesize experiences to strengthen global health governance for future infectious disease crises.
We used Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework and PRISMA methodology was used for literature search and decision on relevant studies. English databases were searched using combinations of keywords and articles examining COVID-19 prevention and control policies in representative countries were included. A comparative analysis across these four states (United States, Sweden, India, and Nigeria) was then conducted to analyse the differences, rationale, and challenges of the approaches taken by these states.
A total of 36 studies were included in the analysis. The management of the COVID-19 by states is divided into two main categories: domestic governance and international governance. Domestically, the United States and India have taken more measures, yet notable disparities in infection source control, transmission interruption, vulnerable population protection, collaborative governance, and so on were observed among all four states. Globally, the United States and Sweden were more proactive in international governance, and all four states have variations in their adherence to global regulations, information sharing, resource distribution, and cooperative engagement.
Significant disparities occurred during the response to early COVID-19 in four states, which may be due to differences in politics, economy, and culture. To prevent and mitigate the impact of infectious diseases, states should, in future, prioritize solidarity and cooperation, and improve governance domestically and internationally based on national contexts and global health principles.
各国是全球卫生治理的主要行为体,在传染病的预防和控制方面尤为如此。近几十年来,传染病的出现和再现对全球卫生安全构成了深远挑战。作为首例冠状病毒大流行,新冠肺炎在全球范围内造成了重大损害,但各国的应对措施和结果差异很大。本研究以新冠肺炎为例,比较不同国家在新冠肺炎大流行期间实施的政策和措施,并总结经验,以加强未来传染病危机的全球卫生治理。
我们使用了 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的五阶段范围综述框架,采用 PRISMA 方法进行文献检索和相关研究的决策。使用关键词组合在英文数据库中进行搜索,并纳入了研究代表性国家新冠肺炎预防和控制政策的文章。然后对这四个国家(美国、瑞典、印度和尼日利亚)进行了比较分析,以分析这些国家采取的方法的差异、理由和挑战。
共纳入 36 项研究。各国对新冠肺炎的管理分为国内治理和国际治理两个主要类别。在国内,美国和印度采取了更多的措施,但在感染源控制、传播中断、弱势群体保护、协作治理等方面,所有四个国家之间存在显著差异。在全球范围内,美国和瑞典在国际治理方面更为积极,所有四个国家在遵守全球法规、信息共享、资源分配和合作参与方面都存在差异。
在应对早期新冠肺炎的过程中,四个国家之间存在显著差异,这可能是由于政治、经济和文化的差异造成的。为了预防和减轻传染病的影响,各国应在未来优先考虑团结与合作,并根据国家情况和全球卫生原则加强国内和国际治理。