UK preparedness for pandemic influenza.

Devolving responsibility for implementation to local authorities may not be the best polic

Protecting Europe from diseases: from the international sanitary conferences to the ECDC.

In the past few decades there has been increased integration of communicable disease policies in Europe. The historical roots of this process date back to the mid-nineteenth century, when national authorities realized that the cross-boundary spread of diseases cannot be only a matter of national governance but requires common agreements and regulations. In the early 1950s the structuring of the World Health Organization in regional offices further contributed to the definition of Europe as a unit for risk assessments and international health cooperation. More recently the consolidation of the European Union has provided new institutional bases for shaping communicable disease policies at the supranational level. This article reviews these different attempts to protect the European space from diseases. It is argued that changing modes of communicable disease control not only have reflected shifts in public health priorities and institutional contexts but have also been important loci where different understandings of Europe and European political identity emerged and were negotiated. Against this background the article then examines past achievements and future challenges of the current European framework and discusses implications for the wider process of European integration

Pandemic legislation in the European Union: Fit for purpose? The need for a systematic comparison of national laws.

Sound governance is central to effective pandemic management. Key international legal instruments governing pandemic management in the European Union (EU): the International Health Regulations (2005) and Decision 1082/13 require EU Member States to develop national plans and invite them to establish national legal frameworks to support compliance with this international legislation. Although Member States may design the legal framework as they choose, the strongest instrument of pandemic governance is national legislation. It is currently unclear what national pandemic governance exists in Member States as it has not been mapped, i.e. identified and collated. Legal analysis and empirical evaluation of implementation and impact have therefore not been possible. We propose comprehensive mapping to create the necessary comparative data for legal analysis assessing national legislation's compliance with international obligations and ethical principles. Empirical research could evaluate its effectiveness in promoting cross-border coherence and robust emergency response. We draw on the U.S. experience with "policy surveillance", the systematic scientific mapping of laws of public health importance. Until national pandemic governance is mapped and evaluated, we cannot know if it is lawful, ethical or effective

Sharing public health data and information across borders: lessons from Southeast Asia.

BACKGROUND: The importance of data and information sharing for the prevention and control of infectious diseases has long been recognised. In recent years, public health emergencies such as avian influenza, drug-resistant malaria, and Ebola have brought renewed attention to the need for effective communication channels between health authorities, particularly in regional contexts where neighbouring countries share common health threats. However, little empirical research has been conducted to date to explore the range of factors that may affect the transfer, exchange, and use of public health data and expertise across borders, especially in developing contexts. METHODS: To explore these issues, 60 interviews were conducted with domestic and international stakeholders in Cambodia and Vietnam, selected amongst those who were involved in regional public health programmes and networks. Data analysis was structured around three categories mapped across the dataset: (1) the nature of shared data and information; (2) the nature of communication channels; and (3) how information flow may be affected by the local, regional, and global system of rules and arrangements. RESULTS: There has been a great intensification in the circulation of data, information, and expertise across borders in Southeast Asia. However, findings from this study document ways in which the movement of data and information from production sites to other places can be challenging due to different standards and practices, language barriers, different national structures and rules that govern the circulation of health information inside and outside countries, imbalances in capacities and power, and sustainability of financing arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the complex socio-technical nature of data and information sharing, suggesting that best practices require significant involvement of an independent third-party brokering organisation or office, which can redress imbalances between country partners at different levels in the data sharing process, create meaningful communication channels and make the most of shared information and data sets