Sasie Sileshi Demelash, Ayano Getinet, Van Zuylen Pien, Aragaw Fantu Mamo, Darebo Tadele Dana, Guerrero-Torres Lorena, Mulugeta Afework, Spigt Mark
Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
School of Population Health, Curtin University, Australia.
Public Health. 2025 Feb;239:22-31. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.012. Epub 2024 Dec 24.
Public health emergencies and disasters highlight gaps in health systems' emergency preparedness capabilities. Developing robust public health emergency management (PHEM) programs is crucial yet challenging. Existing assessment tools are limited in scope or lack standardized measurement. The aim of this study was to identify core domains of PHEM implementation status and key influencing factors.
A scoping review.
A literature review and focused desk review were conducted. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to retrieve relevant studies that explored existing PHEM frameworks, core components, factors influencing implementation, and evaluation tools presented in empirical studies. Additionally, a systematic search of authoritative organizational websites was performed to identify relevant guidelines and frameworks. Subject matter experts consolidated the findings from these diverse data sources through a consultative desk review process.
Out of 7232 studies identified, 50 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Four core domains of PHEM implementation status were identified: overall implementation level; individual factors (capacity building, resources, engagement, and attitudes); organizational factors (information sharing, community involvement, planning, responsibilities, resources, leadership, monitoring/evaluation, coordination, infrastructure, and policies); and overarching factors (workforce, funding, governance, and collaboration. Nineteen key influencing factors emerged, including elements such as leadership, resource allocation, and stakeholder engagement. A conceptual framework was developed that incorporates these thematic domains from major health agencies and determinants identified through qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research.
This review developed a preliminary evaluation framework for PHEM programs based on a comprehensive synthesis of global evidence. The framework lays the groundwork for further validation and application to advance standardized assessments of PHEM capabilities across diverse contexts, ultimately aiming to strengthen health system resilience against emergencies.
突发公共卫生事件和灾害凸显了卫生系统应急准备能力的差距。制定强有力的突发公共卫生事件管理（PHEM）计划至关重要但具有挑战性。现有的评估工具范围有限或缺乏标准化测量方法。本研究的目的是确定PHEM实施状况的核心领域和关键影响因素。
范围综述。
进行了文献综述和重点案头审查。我们检索了PubMed、科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术，以检索相关研究，这些研究探讨了实证研究中提出的现有PHEM框架、核心组成部分、影响实施的因素和评估工具。此外，还对权威组织网站进行了系统搜索，以确定相关指南和框架。主题专家通过协商案头审查过程整合了这些不同数据源的研究结果。
在识别出的7232项研究中，有50项研究符合纳入标准并被纳入本综述。确定了PHEM实施状况的四个核心领域：总体实施水平；个体因素（能力建设、资源、参与度和态度）；组织因素（信息共享、社区参与、规划、责任、资源、领导力、监测/评估、协调、基础设施和政策）；以及总体因素（劳动力、资金、治理和协作）。出现了19个关键影响因素，包括领导力、资源分配和利益相关者参与等要素。开发了一个概念框架，该框架纳入了主要卫生机构的这些主题领域以及通过定性、定量和混合方法研究确定的决定因素。
本综述基于对全球证据的全面综合，为PHEM计划制定了一个初步评估框架。该框架为进一步验证和应用奠定了基础，以推进对不同背景下PHEM能力的标准化评估，最终目标是增强卫生系统应对突发事件的复原力。
