Atnaujinkite slapukų nuostatas

Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response [Minkštas viršelis]

  • Formatas: Paperback / softback, 500 pages, aukštis x plotis: 254x178 mm
  • Išleidimo metai: 28-Nov-2020
  • Leidėjas: National Academies Press
  • ISBN-10: 0309670381
  • ISBN-13: 9780309670388
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
  • Formatas: Paperback / softback, 500 pages, aukštis x plotis: 254x178 mm
  • Išleidimo metai: 28-Nov-2020
  • Leidėjas: National Academies Press
  • ISBN-10: 0309670381
  • ISBN-13: 9780309670388
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
When communities face complex public health emergencies, state local, tribal, and territorial public health agencies must make difficult decisions regarding how to effectively respond. The public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system, with its multifaceted mission to prevent, protect against, quickly respond to, and recover from public health emergencies, is inherently complex and encompasses policies, organizations, and programs. Since the events of September 11, 2001, the United States has invested billions of dollars and immeasurable amounts of human capital to develop and enhance public health emergency preparedness and infrastructure to respond to a wide range of public health threats, including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events. Despite the investments in research and the growing body of empirical literature on a range of preparedness and response capabilities and functions, there has been no national-level, comprehensive review and grading of evidence for public health emergency preparedness and response practices comparable to those utilized in medicine and other public health fields.



Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response reviews the state of the evidence on PHEPR practices and the improvements necessary to move the field forward and to strengthen the PHEPR system. This publication evaluates PHEPR evidence to understand the balance of benefits and harms of PHEPR practices, with a focus on four main areas of PHEPR: engagement with and training of community-based partners to improve the outcomes of at-risk populations after public health emergencies; activation of a public health emergency operations center; communication of public health alerts and guidance to technical audiences during a public health emergency; and implementation of quarantine to reduce the spread of contagious illness.

Table of Contents



Front Matter Abstract Summary 1 Advancing Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response System Capabilities to Respond to Increasing Threats 2 The Landscape and Evolution of Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Research in the United States 3 An Evidence Review and Evaluation Process to Inform Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Decision Making 4 Engaging with and Training Community-Based Partners to Improve the Outcomes of At-Risk Populations 5 Activating a Public Health Emergency Operations Center 6 Communicating Public Health Alerts and Guidance with Technical Audiences During a Public Health Emergency 7 Implementing Quarantine to Reduce or Stop the Spread of a Contagious Disease 8 Improving and Expanding the Evidence Base for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Appendix A: Detailed Description of the Committee's Methods for Formulating the Scope of the Reviews and Capturing the Evidence Appendix B: Mixed-Method Reviews of Selected Topics Appendix B1: Mixed-Method Review of Strategies for Engaging with and Training Community-Based Partners to Improve the Outcomes of At-Risk Populations Appendix B2: Mixed-Method Review of Activating a Public Health Emergency Operations Center Appendix B3: Mixed-Method Review of Channels for Communicating Public Health Alerts and Guidance with Technical Audiences During a Public Health Emergency Appendix B4: Mixed-Method Review of Implementing Quarantine to Reduce or Stop the Spread of a Contagious Disease Appendix C: Commissioned Reports That Informed the Four Mixed-Method Reviews Appendix D: Commissioned Scoping Review and Series of Evidence Maps Appendix E: Public Committee Meeting Agendas and Proceedings of a Workshopin Brief Appendix F: Committee Member Biosketches
Acronyms And Abbreviations xxv
Abstract 1(4)
Summary 5(18)
1 Advancing Public Health Emergency Preparedness And Response System Capabilities To Respond To Increasing Threats
23(1)
Study Charge
24(1)
Conceptualizing the Complex PHEPR System
25(7)
The Building Blocks of the PHEPR System
25(5)
Defining a PHEPR Practice
30(2)
Underlying Reasons for the Current State of the PHEPR Evidence Base
32(7)
A Rapidly Evolving PHEPR System
33(3)
The Increasing Complexity of Public Health Emergencies and the PHEPR System
36(1)
Methodological Challenges for PHEPR Research
37(1)
A Poorly Organized Approach to PHEPR Research and Implications for the PHEPR Researcher Pipeline
38(1)
A Well-Documented Gap Between PHEPR Research and Practice
38(1)
The Importance of Evidence-Based Practice and Guidelines
39(2)
The Emergence of Evidence-Based Guidelines and Policies to Promote Evidence-Based Practice
40(1)
Moving Beyond the Traditional Evidence Hierarchy for Evaluating the Effectiveness of PHEPR Practices
40(1)
About This Report
41(5)
Study Approach and Scope
41(1)
Report Audiences and Uses
42(2)
Organization of the Report
44(2)
References
46(3)
2 The Landscape And Evolution Of Public Health Emergency Preparedness And Response Research In The United States
49(1)
Characterizing the Research on PHEPR: A Map of the Evidence
49(1)
Overall Distribution of Articles Within the 15 PHEPR Capabilities
50(2)
Quantitative Impact Studies Within the 15 PHEPR Capabilities
52(2)
Studies Within Specific Practice Areas of the 15 PHEPR Capabilities
54(1)
Implications for Future Research and Evidence Reviews
55(2)
A Look Back at PHEPR Research Programs
57(5)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Funded Academic PHEPR Workforce Development and Research Centers
57(2)
Other Federal Disaster Research Programs
59(1)
Specific Efforts to Enhance the Conduct of Research During Public Health Emergencies
60(2)
Limitations of PHEPR Research Programs
62(3)
Misaligned and Unclear Research Priorities
62(1)
Lack of Infrastructure to Support the Conduct of Quality PHEPR Research
63(1)
Lack of Coordination Across Funders and Shortcomings of Research Funding
64(1)
Concluding Remarks
65(1)
References
66(5)
3 An Evidence Review And Evaluation Process To Inform Public Health Emergency Preparedness And Response Decision Making
71(1)
Evolving Philosophies for Evaluating Evidence to Inform Evidence-Based Practice: Implications for PHEPR
72(1)
Limitations of the Traditional Evidence Hierarchy
72(1)
Evolving Methods for Evaluating Complex Health Interventions in Complex Systems
73(2)
Implications for Evaluating Evidence in the PHEPR System
75(2)
How Do Different Fields Evaluate Evidence?: A Review of Existing Frameworks
77(4)
Applying a Methodology to Review, Synthesize, and Assess the COE for PHEPR Practices
81(20)
Formulating the Scope of the Reviews and Searching the Literature
83(3)
Synthesizing and Assessing the COE
86(9)
Formulating the Practice Recommendations and Implementation Guidance
95(6)
Limitations, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations for the Future
101(9)
Limitations of the Committee's Evidence Review and Evaluation Methodology
102(1)
Reflections and Lessons Learned from the Mixed-Method Reviews
103(2)
Need for Ongoing PHEPR Evidence Reviews
105(2)
An Infrastructure to Sustain PHEPR Evidence Reviews
107(3)
References
110(6)
4 Engaging With And Training Community-Based Partners To Improve The Outcomes Of At-Risk Populations
116(2)
Description of the Practice
118(1)
Defining the Practice
118(1)
Scope of the Problem Addressed by the Practice
118(3)
Overview of the Key Review Questions and Analytic Framework
121(3)
Defining the Key Review Questions
121(1)
Analytic Framework
122(2)
Overview of the Evidence Supporting the Practice Recommendation
124(6)
Effectiveness
124(3)
Balance of Benefits and Harms
127(1)
Acceptability and Preferences
128(1)
Feasibility and PHEPR System Considerations
128(1)
Resource and Economic Considerations
128(1)
Equity
129(1)
Ethical Considerations
129(1)
Considerations for Implementation
130(1)
Facilitators for CBP Engagement
130(1)
Facilitators for CBP Training
131(1)
Practice Recommendation, Justification, and Implementation Guidance
131(2)
Evidence Gaps and Future Research Priorities
133(2)
References
135(3)
5 Activating A Public Health Emergency Operations Center
138(2)
Description of the Practice
140(1)
Defining the Practice
140(1)
Scope of the Problem Addressed by the Practice
141(3)
Overview of the Key Review Questions and Analytic Framework
144(3)
Defining the Key Review Questions
144(1)
Analytic Framework
145(2)
Overview of the Evidence Supporting the Practice Recommendation
147(3)
Effectiveness
147(1)
Balance of Benefits and Harms
147(1)
Acceptability and Preferences
148(1)
Feasibility and PHEPR System Considerations
149(1)
Resource and Economic Considerations
149(1)
Equity
149(1)
Ethical Considerations
150(1)
Considerations for Implementation
150(4)
Factors in Determining When to Activate a PHEOC
150(2)
Other Implementation Considerations
152(2)
Practice Recommendation, Justification, and Implementation Guidance
154(2)
Evidence Gaps and Future Research Priorities
156(2)
References
158(2)
6 Communicating Public Health Alerts And Guidance With Technical Audiences During A Public Health Emergency
160(2)
Description of the Practice
162(1)
Defining the Practice
162(2)
Scope of the Problem Addressed by the Practice
164(1)
Overview of the Key Review Questions and Analytic Framework
165(2)
Defining the Key Review Questions
165(1)
Analytic Framework
165(2)
Overview of the Evidence Supporting the Practice Recommendation
167(4)
Effectiveness
167(2)
Balance of Benefits and Harms
169(1)
Acceptability and Preferences
169(1)
Feasibility and PHEPR System Considerations
170(1)
Resource and Economic Considerations
170(1)
Equity
170(1)
Ethical Considerations
170(1)
Considerations for Implementation
171(3)
Engaging Technical Audiences in the Development of Communication Plans, Protocols, and Channels
171(1)
Considerations for Selection of Communication Channels
172(1)
Facilitating Communication with Technical Audiences During a Public Health Emergency
173(1)
Practice Recommendation, Justification, and Implementation Guidance
174(1)
Evidence Gaps and Future Research Priorities
175(2)
References
177(3)
7 Implementing Quarantine To Reduce Or Stop The Spread Of A Contagious Disease
180(1)
Description of the Practice
182(2)
Defining the Practice
182(1)
Scope of the Problem Addressed by the Practice
183(2)
Overview of the Key Review Questions and Analytic Framework
185(3)
Defining the Key Review Questions
185(1)
Analytic Framework
186(2)
Overview of the Evidence Supporting the Practice Recommendation
188(6)
Effectiveness
188(2)
Findings from a Synthesis of Modeling Studies: Quarantine Is More Effective Under Certain Circumstances
190(1)
Balance of Benefits and Harms
191(1)
Acceptability and Preferences
192(1)
Feasibility and PHEPR System Considerations
192(1)
Resource and Economic Considerations
192(1)
Equity
193(1)
Ethical Considerations
193(1)
Considerations for Implementation
194(4)
Facilitating Adherence to and Minimizing Harms from Quarantine Measures
194(2)
Other Implementation Considerations
196(2)
Practice Recommendation, Justification, and Implementation Guidance
198(1)
Evidence Caps and Future Research Priorities
199(3)
Quarantine and the COVID-19 Pandemic
201(1)
References
202(3)
8 Improving And Expanding The Evidence Base For Public Health Emergency Preparedness And Response
205(1)
A National PHEPR Science Framework
206(1)
Key Components of a National PHEPR Science Framework
207(5)
Ensuring Adequate Infrastructure and Supporting Mechanisms to Facilitate the Conduct of PHEPR Research
212(4)
Conclusion and Recommendations
216(2)
Supporting Methodological Improvements for PHEPR Research
218(6)
Common Evidence Guidelines
218(3)
Standards for Reporting of Study Information
221(2)
Conclusion and Recommendation
223(1)
Improving Systems to Generate High-Quality Experiential Evidence for PHEPR
224(8)
Limitations of AARs as a Source of Experiential Evidence for Mixed-Method Evidence Reviews
225(2)
Strengthening Methodological Approaches
227(2)
Establishing Mechanisms for Analysis and Dissemination of Lessons Learned from AARs
229(2)
Fostering a Culture of Quality Improvement
231(1)
Conclusions and Recommendation
231(1)
Workforce Capacity Development for Researchers and Practitioners in PHEPR
232(3)
Researchers
232(1)
Practitioners
233(1)
Conclusion and Recommendation
234(1)
Translation, Dissemination, and Implementation of PHEPR Research to Practice
235(5)
Building Implementation Capacity
235(3)
Conclusion and Recommendation
238(2)
Annex 8-1 Genres of Research to Inform Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Practices
240(4)
References
244(7)
APPENDIXES
A Detailed Description Of The Committee's Methods For Formulating The Scope Of The Reviews And Capturing The Evidence
251(40)
B Mixed-Method Reviews Of Selected Topics
291(142)
B-1 Mixed-Method Review Of Strategies For Engaging With And Training Community-Based Partners To Improve The Outcomes Of At-Risk Populations
293(40)
B-2 Mixed-Method Review Of Activating A Public Health Emergency Operations Center
333(24)
B-3 Mixed-Method Review Of Channels For Communicating Public Health Alerts And Guidance With Technical Audiences During A Public Health Emergency
357(30)
B-4 Mixed-Method Review Of Implementing Quarantine To Reduce Or Stop The Spread Of A Contagious Disease
387(46)
C Commissioned Reports That Informed The Four Mixed-Method Reviews
433(2)
D Commissioned Scoping Review And Series Of Evidence Maps
435(24)
E Public Committee Meeting Agendas And Proceedings Of A Workshop--In Brief
459(6)
F Committee Member Biosketches
465