Assessing public health preparedness and response in the European Union- a review of regional simulation exercises and after action reviews.

BACKGROUND: Improving response capacities in the EU requires a good overview of capacities at both country and Union level. The International Health Regulations (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation framework assesses capacities in countries. It includes semi-quantitative tools such as State Parties Annual Report (SPAR) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE). After Action Reviews (AAR) and Simulation Exercises (SimEx) were included to identify weaknesses in the functionality of capacities which are not addressed bySPAR and JEE. This study presents an analysis of the use of qualitative tools at regional level, in Europe. It aims to identify their added value by comparing them to standardised monitoring tools and lessons learned from COVID-19, and considers ways to improve their use in assessing capacities in the EU. METHODS: We included 17 SimEx and 2 AAR organised by the European Commission between 2005 and 2018. We categorised a total of 357 recommendations according to the IHR (2005) core capacities and to the target audience of the recommendation. We analysed the data using language analysis software. Recommendations to countries were compared to SPAR and JEE indicators. Recommendations to EU agencies were compared to the current mandates of the EU agencies, and to lessons learnt during COVID-19. RESULTS: Of all extracted recommendations from the exercises, 59% (211/357) targeted EU agencies, 18% (64/357) targeted countries, and 16% (57/357) targeted both. Recommendations mainly addressed areas of IHR coordination (C2), heath emergency management (C7) and risk communication (C10), and not low scoring areas. Recommendations complement SPAR indicators by identifying gaps in functionality. Eight out of ten early lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic had been raised earlier as recommendations from exercises. Exercise reports did not include or result in action plans for implementation, but COVID-19 has accelerated implementation of some recommendations. CONCLUSION: SimEx/AAR provide valuable insight into public health preparedness at EU level, as they assess functionality of preparedness and response mechanisms, point out gaps, and provide training and awareness on for participants, who often have key roles in public health emergencies. Better follow-up and implementation of recommendations is key to improve the regional preparedness for international public health incidents such as pandemics.

Provider-initiated HIV testing uptake and socio-economic status among women in a conflict zone in the Central African Republic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: In the Central African Republic (CAR), HIV/AIDS is the main cause of death in women aged 15-49 years. Increased testing coverage is essential in prevention of HIV/AIDS, especially in areas where conflict hinders access to health care. Socio-economic status (SES) has been shown to be associated with HIV testing uptake. We investigated whether "Provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling" (PITC) could be implemented in a family planning clinic in an active conflict zone in the Central African Republic to reach women of reproductive age and assessed whether socioeconomic status was associated with testing uptake. METHODS: Women aged 15-49 years were recruited from a free family planning clinic run by Médecins Sans Frontières in the capital Bangui. An asset-based measurement tool was created based on analysis of qualitative in-depth interviews. Measures of socioeconomic status were constructed from the tool, also by using factor analysis. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between SES and HIV testing uptake (yes/no), while controlling for potential confounders: age, marital status, number of children, education level and head of household. RESULTS: A total of 1419 women were recruited during the study period, where 87.7% consented to HIV testing, and 95.5% consented to contraception use. A total of 11.9% had never been tested for HIV previously. Factors negatively associated with HIV testing uptake were: being married (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5); living in a household headed by the husband as opposed to by another person (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6), and lower age (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99). Higher level of education (OR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.97-1.1) and having more children aged under 15 (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.1) was not associated with testing uptake. In multivariable regression, testing uptake was lower in the higher SES groups, but the differences were not significant (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.55-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that PITC can be successfully implemented in the patient flow in a family planning clinic, without compromising contraception uptake. Within the PITC framework in a conflict setting, socioeconomic status was not found to be associated with testing uptake in women of reproductive age.