Validation analysis of Global Health Security Index (GHSI) scores 2019

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21879505
AutoresMatt Boyd (0000-0002-1387-5047, Research Director, Adapt Research Ltd, Reefton, New Zealand, autor correspondente), Nick Wilson (0000-0001-5250-9894, University of Otago), Cassidy Nelson (0000-0003-0934-8313, University of Oxford)
Ano2020
Volume5
Fascículo10
Páginase003276
Data de publicação2020-10-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
EditoraBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003276
PMID33106239
OpenAlexW3094113586
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas13
Referências citadas16

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the consequences of biothreats. Countries will want to know how to better prepare for future events. The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) is a broad, independent assessment of 195 countries' preparedness for biothreats that may aid this endeavour. However, to be useful, the GHSI's external validity must be demonstrated. We aimed to validate the GHSI against a range of external metrics to assess how it could be utilised by countries. METHODS: Global aggregate communicable disease outcomes were correlated with GHSI scores and linear regression models were examined to determine associations while controlling for a number of global macroindices. GHSI scores for countries previously exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola and recipients of US Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) investment were compared with matched control countries. Possible content omissions in light of the progressing COVID-19 pandemic were assessed. RESULTS: (3, 172)=22.75, p<0.0001). The proportion of deaths from communicable diseases decreased 4.8% per 10-point rise in GHSI. Recipient countries of the GHSA (n=31) and SARS-affected countries (n=26), had GHSI scores 6.0 (p=0.0011) and 8.2 (p=0.0010) points higher than matched controls, respectively. Biosecurity and biosafety appear weak globally including in high-income countries, and health systems, particularly in Africa, are not prepared. Notably, the GHSI does not account for all factors important for health security. CONCLUSION: The GHSI shows promise as a valid tool to guide action on biosafety, biosecurity and systems preparedness. However, countries need to look beyond existing metrics to other factors moderating the impact of future pandemics and other biothreats. Consideration of anthropogenic and large catastrophic scenarios is also needed

Environmental health · Health security · Political science · Public health · Computer Science · Data-Driven Disease Surveillance · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research · Zoonotic diseases and public health