2nd Edition of Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (Health-EDRM)

Disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, floods, heat waves, nuclear accidents, and large-scale pollution incidents take lives and incur major health problems. The majority of large-scale disasters affect the most vulnerable populations, which often comprise extreme ages, remote living areas, and endemic poverty, as well as people with low literacy. Health emergency and disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) refers to the systematic analysis and management of health risks surrounding emergencies and disasters, and plays an important role in reducing the hazards and vulnerability along with extending preparedness, responses, and recovery measures. This concept encompasses risk analyses and interventions, such as accessible early warning systems, the timely deployment of relief workers, and the provision of suitable drugs and medical equipment to decrease the impact of disasters on people before, during, and after an event (or events). Currently, there is a major gap in the scientific literature regarding Health-EDRM to facilitate major global policies and initiatives for disaster risk reduction worldwide

Health-Related Emergency Disaster Risk Management (Health-EDRM)

Disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, floods, heat waves, nuclear accidents, and large scale pollution incidents take lives and cause exceptionally large health problems. The majority of large-scale disasters affect the most vulnerable populations, which are often comprised of people of extreme ages, in remote living areas, with endemic poverty, and with low literacy. Health-related emergency disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) [1] refers to the systematic analysis and management of health risks surrounding emergencies and disasters; it plays an important role in reducing hazards and vulnerability along with extending preparedness, response, and recovery measures. This concept encompasses risk analyses and interventions, such as accessible early warning systems, timely deployment of relief workers, and the provision of suitable drugs and medical equipment, to decrease the impact of disaster on people before, during, and after disaster events. Disaster risk profiling and interventions can be at the personal/household, community, and system/political levels; they can be targeted at specific health risks including respiratory issues caused by indoor burning, re-emergence of infectious disease due to low vaccination coverage, and gastrointestinal problems resulting from unregulated waste management. Unfortunately, there has been a major gap in the scientific literature regarding Health-EDRM. The aim of this Special Issue of IJERPH was to present papers describing/reporting the latest disaster and health risk analyses, as well as interventions for health-related disaster risk management, in an effort to address this gap and facilitate major global policies and initiatives for disaster risk reduction

Reviewing of Published Studies on Health risk Management in Emergency and Disaster

Background: The need for comprehensive and more serious management of disasters and, consequently, the need for knowledge and how to use it in order to reduce the risk of disasters has increased. The importance of this issue is such that in 2016, the World Health Organization launched a research network related to health risk management in disasters. Accordingly, this study was conducted to review articles published in the field of health in emergency and disaster. Methods: In this study, the narrative review method has been used. The accessible articles published in the field of health Risk Management (health EDRM) from 2000 to 2019 were reviewed. Databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Scopus, Medline, Magiran and SID were used. 24 studies had the inclusion criteria that were selected and analyzed. Data analysis was a qualitative content analysis in the form of components of health risk management in emergency and disasters. Results: Among the 24 studies reviewed, 21 articles were in English and 3 articles were in Persian. In addition, most of these studies were published in 2019. The articles were analyzed and reported in the form of components and functions of health risk management in emergency and disasters, published in 2019 by the World Health Organization. Conclusion: Studies show that the focus of most studies is on policies, strategies and legislation, planning and coordination, and less attention is paid to the components of risk communication and health services. Also, there are many research gaps and it is suggested that more research be done with more precise guidance

Building resilience against biological hazards and pandemics: COVID-19 and its implications for the Sendai Frameworks

2020 has become the year of coping with COVID-19. This year was to be the “super year” for sustainability, a year of strengthening global actions to accelerate the transformations required for achieving the 2030 agenda. We argue that 2020 can and must be a year of both. Thus we call for more utilisation of the health-emergency disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) framework to complement current responses to COVID-19 and the patent risk of similar phenomena in the future. To make our case, we examine current responses to COVID-19 and their implications for the SFDRR. We argue that current mechanisms and strategies for disaster resilience, as outlined in the SFDRR, can enhance responses to epidemics or global pandemics such as COVID-19. In this regard, we make several general and DRR-specific recommendations. These recommendations concern knowledge and science provision in understanding disaster and health-related emergency risks, the extension of disaster risk governance to manage both disaster risks and potential health-emergencies, particularly for humanitarian coordination aspects; and the strengthening of community-level preparedness and response

Using logic models in research and evaluation of Health EDRM interventions

This chapter outlines how logic models can be used to conceptualize how interventions are intended to work, and their relationship with the broader context in which they take place – focusing on Health EDRM settings. Logic models are tools used to outline assumptions about the chains of processes, activities or events expected to occur during the implementation of an intervention, and the way in which these lead to changes in outcomes. They provide an initial set of assumptions about how different components of an intervention are expected to change outcomes, and can be used to develop further sub-research questions to investigate the validity of these assumptions. Logic models can also be used to communicate findings from research and evaluation activities, and can serve as useful tools in planning an intervention, including for the identification of relevant outcomes and monitoring of its delivery. However, this chapter will focus primarily on the use of logic models for research and evaluation purposes

Role of Community Health Volunteers Since the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes: A Qualitative Study

Objective: Nepal female community health volunteers (FCHVs) were the first available health personnel in communities during the 2015 Nepal earthquakes. This study explored the facilitating factors and barriers of the FCHVs during health emergencies. Methods: In-depth interviews with 24 FCHVs and 4 health managers from 2 districts in Nepal (Gorkha and Sindhupalchowk) were conducted using semi-structured interview guides. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis methods. Results: FCHVs were the first responders to provide services after the earthquakes and were well accepted by the local communities. Different models of supervision existed, and differences in the workload and remuneration offered to FCHVs were described. A wide range of disaster-related knowledge and skills were required by FCHVs, and lack of prior training was an issue for some respondents. Furthermore, lack of access to adequate medical supplies was a major barrier for FCHVs in the 2015 earthquakes. The 5 identified themes were discussed. Conclusion: Providing regular disaster response training for FCHVs and strong leadership from the public sector with sustained investments will be essential for increasing the capacities of community health workforces to prepare for and reduce the impacts of future health emergencies in resource-poor settings

The Italian Response to the COVID-19 Crisis: Lessons Learned and Future Direction in Social Development:

Against the backdrop of a continuously changing situation, the aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of COVID-19 crisis in Italy, the government response to cope with the crisis and the major lessons learned during its management. The analysis shows how Italy's response has been characterised by some rapid measures to tackle the health crisis, but few plans in the mitigation stage and a lack of community involvement. This contribution stress the importance of a cultural shift, through the effort to apply in practice the principles already indicated in the main global policy frameworks to guide disaster management. A community social development approach can help to build concrete actions in this direction

Successfully Implementing Digital Health to Ensure Future Global Health Security During Pandemics A Consensus Statement

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 has highlighted widespread chronic underinvestment in digital health that hampered public health responses to the pandemic. Recognizing this, the Riyadh Declaration on Digital Health, formulated by an international interdisciplinary team of medical, academic, and industry experts at the Riyadh Global Digital Health Summit in August 2020, provided a set of digital health recommendations for the global health community to address the challenges of current and future pandemics. However, guidance is needed on how to implement these recommendations in practice. OBJECTIVE To develop guidance for stakeholders on how best to deploy digital health and data and support public health in an integrated manner to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics. EVIDENCE REVIEW Themes were determined by first reviewing the literature and Riyadh Global Digital Health Summit conference proceedings, with experts independently contributing ideas. Then, 2 rounds of review were conducted until all experts agreed on the themes and main issues arising using a nominal group technique to reach consensus. Prioritization was based on how useful the consensus recommendation might be to a policy maker. FINDINGS A diverse stakeholder group of 13 leaders in the fields of public health, digital health, and health care were engaged to reach a consensus on how to implement digital health recommendations to address the challenges of current and future pandemics. Participants reached a consensus on high-priority issues identified within 5 themes: team, transparency and trust, technology, techquity (the strategic development and deployment of technology in health care and health to achieve health equity), and transformation. Each theme contains concrete points of consensus to guide the local, national, and international adoption of digital health to address challenges of current and future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The consensus points described for these themes provide a roadmap for the implementation of digital health policy by all stakeholders, including governments. Implementation of these recommendations could have a significant impact by reducing fatalities and uniting countries on current and future battles against pandemics.Peer reviewe

Strategies for Strengthening the Resilience of Public Health Systems for Pandemics, Disasters, and Other Emergencies

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize strategies for strengthening public health system resilience for pandemics, disasters, and other emergencies using a scorecard approach. METHODS: The United Nations Public Health System Resilience Scorecard (Scorecard) was applied across 5 workshops in Slovenia, Turkey, and the United States of America. The workshops focused on participants reviewing and discussing 23 questions/indicators. A Likert type scale was used for scoring with zero being the lowest and 5 the highest. The workshop scores were analyzed and discussed by participants to prioritize areas of need and develop resilience strategies. Data from all workshops were aggregated, analyzed, and interpreted to develop priorities representative of participating locations. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged representing the need for better integration of public health and disaster management systems. These include: assessing community disease burden; embedding long-term recovery groups in emergency systems; exploring mental health care needs; examining ecosystem risks; evaluating reserve funds; identifying what crisis communication strategies worked well; providing non-medical services; and reviewing resilience of existing facilities, alternate care sites, and institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The Scorecard is an effective tool for establishing baseline resilience and prioritizing actions. The strategies identified reflect areas in most need for investment to improve public health system resilience