Urban pandemic response
Survey results describing the experiences from twenty-five cities during the Covid-19 pandemic
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19592257 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Matthew 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) |
| Editors | Majumdar (0000-0002-9656-557X), Suman Majumdar (0000-0001-5948-6920) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Pages | e0000859 |
| Publication date | 2022-11-29 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | PLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375 |
| Publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000859 |
| PMID | 36962772 |
| OpenAlex | W4310359140 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 21 |
Since first being detected in Wuhan, China in late December 2019, COVID-19 has demanded a response from all levels of government. While the role of local governments in routine public health functions is well understood–and the response to the pandemic has highlighted the importance of involving local governments in the response to and management of large, multifaceted challenges–their role in pandemic response remains more undefined. Accordingly, to better understand how local governments in cities were involved in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a survey involving cities in the Partnership for Healthy Cities to: (i) understand which levels of government were responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed regarding select pandemic response activities; (ii) document when response activities were implemented; (iii) characterize how challenging response activities were; and (iv) query about future engagement in pandemic and epidemic preparedness. Twenty-five cities from around the world completed the survey and we used descriptive statistics to summarize the urban experience in pandemic response. Our results show that national authorities were responsible and accountable for a majority of the activities considered, but that local governments were also responsible and accountable for key activities–especially risk communication and coordinating with community-based organizations and civil society organizations. Further, most response activities were implemented after COVID-19 had been confirmed in a city, many pandemic response activities proved to be challenging for local authorities, and nearly all local authorities envisioned being more engaged in pandemic preparedness and response following the COVID-19 pandemic. This descriptive research represents an important contribution to an expanding evidence base focused on improving the response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as future outbreaks
2019-20 coronavirus outbreak · Disease · Geography · Outbreak · Pandemic · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts · Disaster Management and Resilience · Medicine · Virology
How urbanization affects the epidemiology of emerging infectious diseases
Community engagement for Covid-19 prevention and control
Covid-19 data are messy
Trust, risk, and the challenge of information sharing during a health emergency
Local government responses for Covid-19 management in the Philippines
Platform philanthropy, ‘public value’, and the Covid-19 pandemic moment
Covid-19 risk governance
Fact-checking as risk communication
Urban governance innovation and Covid-19
| Highly cited | No |
|---|