Preparedness, impacts, and responses of public health emergencies towards health security: qualitative synthesis of evidence

Abstract

Background: Natural and human-made public health emergencies (PHEs), such as armed conflicts, floods, and disease outbreaks, influence health systems including interruption of delivery and utilization of health services, and increased health service needs. However, the intensity and types of impacts of these PHEs vary across countries due to several associated factors. This scoping review aimed to synthesise available evidence on PHEs, their preparedness, impacts, and responses.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review of published evidence. Studies were identified using search terms related to two concepts: health security and primary health care. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We adapted the review framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and explained under three stages of PHEs: preparedness, impacts, and responses.

Results: A total of 64 studies were included in this review. Health systems of many low- and middle-income countries had inadequate preparedness to absorb the shocks of PHEs, limited surveillance, and monitoring of risks. Health systems have been overburdened with interrupted health services, increased need for health services, poor health resilience, and health inequities. Strategies of response to the impact of PHEs included integrated services such as public health and primary care, communication and partnership across sectors, use of digital tools, multisectoral coordination and actions, system approach to responses, multidisciplinary providers, and planning for resilient health systems.

Conclusions: Public health emergencies have high impacts in countries with weak health systems, inadequate preparedness, and inadequate surveillance mechanisms. Better health system preparedness is required to absorb the impact, respond to the consequences, and adapt for future PHEs. Some potential response strategies could be ensuring need-based health services, monitoring and surveillance of post-emergency outbreaks, and multisectoral actions to engage sectors to address the collateral impacts of PHEs. Mitigation strategies for future PHEs could include risk assessment, disaster preparedness, and setting digital alarm systems for monitoring and surveillance.

Keywords: Health security and universal health coverage; Impacts; Preparedness; Primary care; Primary health care; Public health emergencies; Responses.

Fig. 1

PRISMA-ScR flow chart showing the selection of studies for the review