How do local-level authorities engage in epidemic and pandemic preparedness activities and coordinate with higher levels of government? Survey results from 33 cities

Bibliographic Data

ID19594066
AuthorsMatthew R Boyce (0000-0002-6224-9755, Georgetown University, corresponding author), Melissa Cordoba Asprilla (Vital Strategies), Breanna van Loenen (0009-0004-4538-835X), Amanda Mcclelland (0009-0000-6825-2851), Ariella Rojhani (Vital Strategies)
EditorsSyed Shahid Abbas
Year2022
Volume2
Issue10
Pagese0000650
Publication date2022-10-19
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375
PublisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pgph.0000650
PMID36962601
OpenAlexW4306818256
LanguageEN
References cited21

The COVID-19 pandemic suggests that there are opportunities to improve preparedness for infectious disease outbreaks. While much attention has been given to understanding national-level preparedness, relatively little attention has been given to understanding preparedness at the local-level. We, therefore, aim to describe (1) how local governments in urban environments were engaged in epidemic preparedness efforts before the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) how they were coordinating with authorities at higher levels of governance before COVID-19. We developed a survey and distributed it to 50 cities around the world involved in the Partnership for Healthy Cities. The survey included several question formats including free-response, matrices, and multiple-choice questions. RACI matrices, a project management tool that helps explain coordination structures, were used to understand the level of government responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed regarding select preparedness activities. We used descriptive statistics to summarize local-level engagement in preparedness. Local authorities from 33 cities completed the survey. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 of the cities had completed infectious disease risk assessments, 10 completed all-hazards risk assessments, 11 completed simulation exercises, 10 completed after-action reviews, 19 developed preparedness and response plans, three reported involvement in their country’s Joint External Evaluation of the International Health Regulations, and eight cities reported involvement in the development of their countries’ National Action Plan for Health Security. RACI matrices revealed various models of epidemic preparedness, with responsibility often shared across levels, and national governments accountable for the most activities, compared to other governance levels. In conclusion, national governments maintain the largest role in epidemic and pandemic preparedness but the role of subnational and local governments is not negligible. Local-level actors engage in a variety of preparedness activities and future efforts should strive to better include these actors in preparedness as a means of bolstering local, national, and global health security

Action plan · Business · Disease · Emergency management · Environmental health · General partnership · Local government · Management · Pandemic · Political science · Preparedness · Public relations · Disaster Response and Management · Medicine · Public Administration · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research · Zoonotic diseases and public health