Contact tracing in Austria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and Kosovo† during the COVID-19 pandemic: response review and good practices.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, effective contact tracing was recognized as a crucial public health response to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, particularly before widespread vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended implementing active surveillance strategies to trace and quarantine contacts of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases. METHODS: A detailed review and analysis of the COVID-19 contact tracing responses was conducted in five European countries and territories, between March 2021 and August 2022. The countries and territories were selected to ensure geographical representation across the WHO European Region and applied a mixed-methods approach of in-depth interviews with various stakeholders across different administrative levels to identify good practices in COVID-19 contact tracing. The interviews covered 12 themes, including methods and procedures for COVID-19 contact tracing, information technology, quality assurance and key performance indicators. RESULTS: The findings demonstrate that the policy approach, digitalization capabilities and implementation approach varied in the countries and territories and were dynamic throughout the pandemic. The analysis revealed that some practices were applicable across all countries and territories, while others were context-specific, catering to each country's and territory's unique needs. The study highlighted a need for all countries to institutionalize contact tracing as an essential function of existing health systems, to digitalize contact tracing practices and processes, and to build and retain contact tracing capacities for better pandemic preparedness. CONCLUSION: The lessons related to COVID-19 contact tracing should be utilized to strengthen future outbreak response operations as part of epidemic and pandemic preparedness.

Did pandemic preparedness aid the response to pandemic (H1N1) 2009? A qualitative analysis in seven countries within the WHO European Region.

BACKGROUND: Although the 2009-2010 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic was of low severity compared with other pandemics of the 20th century, this pandemic was the first opportunity for countries to implement a real-life pandemic response. The aim of the project was to review the extent to which these plans and planning activities proved useful and to identify areas of pandemic planning that require further strengthening. METHODS: We randomly selected seven countries within the WHO European Region to participate in a comprehensive, qualitative study to evaluate the pandemic preparedness activities undertaken prior to March 2009 compared with the subsequent pandemic responses mounted from May 2009 onwards. Research teams visited each country and interviewed stakeholders from health and civil response ministries, national public health authorities, regional authorities and family and hospital doctors. RESULTS: The following six consistent themes were identified as essential elements of successful pandemic preparedness activities: communication, coordination, capacity building, adaptability/flexibility, leadership and mutual support. Regarding future pandemic preparedness activities, an emphasis on these areas should be retained and planning for the following activities should be improved: communication (i.e., with the public and health professionals); coordination of vaccine procurement and logistics; flexibility of response and hospital surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic preparedness activities were successfully undertaken in the WHO European Region prior to the 2009 pandemic. These activities proved to be effective and were generally appropriate for the response provided in 2009. Nevertheless, consistent themes also emerged regarding specific areas of under planning that were common to most of the surveyed countries.

Developing pandemic preparedness in Europe in the 21st century: experience, evolution and next steps.

PROBLEM: Improving pandemic planning and preparedness is a challenge in Europe, a diverse region whose regional bodies (the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization [WHO], the European Commission and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) have overlapping roles and responsibilities. APPROACH: European pandemic preparedness indicators were used to develop an assessment tool and procedure based on the 2005 global WHO checklist for pandemic preparedness. These were then applied to Member States of WHO's European Region, initially as part of structured national assessments conducted during short visits by external teams. LOCAL SETTING: Countries in WHO's European Region. RELEVANT CHANGES: From 2005 to 2008, 43 countries underwent a pandemic preparedness assessment that included a short external assessment visit by an expert team. These short visits developed into a longer self-assessment procedure involving an external team but "owned" by the countries, which identified gaps and developed plans for improving preparedness. The assessment tool and procedure became more sophisticated as national and local pandemic preparedness became more complex. The 2009 pandemic revealed new gaps in planning, surveillance communications and immunization. LESSONS LEARNT: Structured national self-assessments with support from external teams allow individual countries to identify gaps in their pandemic preparedness plans and enable regional bodies to assess the regional and global resources that such plans require. The 2009 pandemic revealed additional problems with surveillance, pandemic severity estimates, the flexibility of the response, vaccination, involvement of health-care workers and communication. European national plans are being upgraded and global leadership is required to ensure that these plans are uniformly applied across the region.