Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 24;22(1):14.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01098-z.

Multi-sectoral collaborations in selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region: assessment, enablers and missed opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic response

Affiliations

Multi-sectoral collaborations in selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region: assessment, enablers and missed opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic response

Fadi El-Jardali et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emphasized the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration to respond effectively to public health emergencies. This study aims to generate evidence on the extent to which multi-sectoral collaborations have been employed in the macro-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in nine selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR).

Methods: The study employed in-depth analytical research design and was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, data were collected using a comprehensive documentation review. In the second phase, key informant interviews were conducted to validate findings from the first phase and gain additional insights into key barriers and facilitators. We analysed the macro-level pandemic responses across the following seven components of the analytical framework for multi-sectoral collaborations: (1) context and trigger; (2) leadership, institutional mechanisms and processes; (3) actors; (4) administration, funding and evaluation; (5) degree of multi-sectoral engagement; (6) impact; and (7) enabling factors.

Results: Governments in the EMR have responded differently to the pandemic, with variations in reaction speed and strictness of implementation. While inter-ministerial committees were identified as the primary mechanism through which multi-sectoral action was established and implemented in the selected countries, there was a lack of clarity on how they functioned, particularly regarding the closeness of the cooperation and the working methods. Coordination structures lacked a clear mandate, joint costed action plan, sufficient resources and regular reporting on commitments. Furthermore, there was no evidence of robust communication planning both internally, focused on promoting internal consensual decision-making and managing power dynamics, and externally, concerning communication with the public. Across the selected countries, there was strong representation of different ministries in the pandemic response. Conversely, the contribution of non-state actors, including non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, the private sector, the media and citizens, was relatively modest. Their involvement was more ad hoc, fragmented and largely self-initiated, particularly within the selected middle- and low income- countries of the EMR. Moreover, none of the countries incorporated explicit accountability framework or included anti-corruption and counter-fraud measures as integral components of their multi-sectoral plans and coordination mechanisms. Key enablers for the adoption of multi-sectoral collaborations have been identified, paving the way for more efficient responses in the future.

Discussion: Mirroring global efforts, this study demonstrates that the selected countries in the EMR are making efforts to integrate multi-sectoral action into their pandemic responses. Nevertheless, persistent challenges and gaps remain, presenting untapped opportunities that governments can leverage to enhance the efficiency of future public health emergency responses.

Keywords: COVID-19; Collaboration; Coordination; Eastern Mediterranean region; Inter-sectoral; Multi-sectoral; Multi-sectoral collaboration; Pandemic; Public health crisis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Involvement of non-state actors and their roles in the COVID-19 pandemic response
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview of public health and socio-economic measures adopted by selected EMR countries during the first year of the pandemic (i.e. year 2020)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview of public health and socio-economic measures adopted by selected EMR countries during the first year of the pandemic (i.e. year 2020)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview of public health and socio-economic measures adopted by selected EMR countries during the first year of the pandemic (i.e. year 2020)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Covid-19-related outcomes in selected EMR countries (as of 5 May 2023) [–, –113]

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe.
    Peixoto R, Voolstra CR, Stein LY, Hugenholtz P, Salles JF, Amin SA, Häggblom M, Gregory A, Makhalanyane TP, Wang F, Agbodjato NA, Wang Y, Jiao N, Lennon JT, Ventosa A, Bavoil PM, Miller V, Gilbert JA. Peixoto R, et al. ISME J. 2024 Jan 8;18(1):wrae219. doi: 10.1093/ismejo/wrae219. ISME J. 2024. PMID: 39527614 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe.
    Peixoto R, Voolstra CR, Stein LY, Hugenholtz P, Falcao Salles J, Amin SA, Häggblom M, Gregory A, Makhalanyane TP, Wang F, Adoukè Agbodjato N, Wang Y, Jiao N, Lennon JT, Ventosa A, Bavoil PM, Miller V, Gilbert JA. Peixoto R, et al. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2024 Oct 25;100(11):fiae144. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiae144. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2024. PMID: 39527081 Free PMC article.
  • Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe.
    Peixoto R, Voolstra CR, Stein LY, Hugenholtz P, Salles JF, Amin SA, Häggblom M, Gregory A, Makhalanyane TP, Wang F, Agbodjato NA, Wang Y, Jiao N, Lennon JT, Ventosa A, Bavoil PM, Miller V, Gilbert JA. Peixoto R, et al. Nat Microbiol. 2024 Dec;9(12):3084-3085. doi: 10.1038/s41564-024-01861-0. Nat Microbiol. 2024. PMID: 39528727 No abstract available.
  • Pandemic preparedness and response in the EMR: adapting lessons learnt from pandemics for tomorrow.
    Al Bakri D, Jansen A, Newman E, Suk J, Asghar RJ, Merabet M, Hess S, Albayat S, Khader Y, Bashier H, Al-Gunaid M, Al Nsour M. Al Bakri D, et al. Front Public Health. 2025 Aug 13;13:1653111. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1653111. eCollection 2025. Front Public Health. 2025. PMID: 40880934 Free PMC article.
  • The imperative of professionalising healthcare management: A global perspective.
    Al Salmi Q, Al Fannah J, de Roodenbeke E. Al Salmi Q, et al. Future Healthc J. 2024 Aug 8;11(3):100170. doi: 10.1016/j.fhj.2024.100170. eCollection 2024 Sep. Future Healthc J. 2024. PMID: 39281325 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Chen Z, Cao C, Yang G. Coordinated multi-sectoral efforts needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from China and the United States. Global Health Res Policy. 2020;5(1):1–3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patel A, Jernigan DB, Abdirizak F, Abedi G, Aggarwal S, Albina D, et al. Initial public health response and interim clinical guidance for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak—United States, December 31, 2019–February 4, 2020. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(5):140. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Salunke S, Lal DK. Multisectoral approach for promoting public health. Indian J Public Health. 2017;61(3):163. - PubMed
    1. Larsen M, Rantala R, Koudenburg OA, Gulis G. Intersectoral action for health: the experience of a Danish municipality. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42(7):649–657. - PubMed
    1. Khan A, Alsofayan Y, Alahmari A, Alowais J, Algwizani A, Alserehi H, et al. COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: the national health response. East Mediterr Health J. 2021;27(11):1114–1124. - PubMed