Public Health Readiness for Citizen Science: Health Department Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of US health departments with citizen science. DESIGN: In 2019, we conducted a national survey of 272 local health department (LHD) representatives about knowledge and attitudes, readiness, experiences, and barriers related to citizen science (response rate = 45%). SETTING: LHDs in the United States in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: LHD representatives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and attitudes, readiness, experiences, and barriers related to citizen science. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of respondents reported LHD experience with citizen science in areas such as health promotion, emergency preparedness, and environmental health. LHDs in large jurisdictions (78%) were more likely to report staff familiarity with citizen science than small (51%) and medium (59%) jurisdictions ( P = .01). Although 64% reported readiness for citizen science, only 32% reported readiness for community-led activities. We found that LHDs use citizen science more for community engagement activities, such as public education, than data collection activities. Respondents indicated that staff education and training in citizen science methods, funding, and partners with relevant expertise were priority needs. CONCLUSION: LHDs have leveraged citizen science for community engagement, but barriers to technical uses remain.

Enhancing community preparedness: an inventory and analysis of disaster citizen science activities.

BACKGROUND: Disaster citizen science, or the use of scientific principles and methods by "non-professional" scientists or volunteers, may be a promising way to enhance public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) and build community resilience. However, little research has focused on understanding this emerging field and its implications for PHEP. To address research gaps, this paper: (1) assesses the state of disaster citizen science by developing an inventory of disaster citizen science projects; (2) identifies different models of disaster citizen science; and (3) assesses their relevance for PHEP. METHODS: We searched the English-language peer-reviewed and grey literature for disaster citizen science projects with no time period specified. Following searches, a team of three reviewers applied inclusion/exclusion criteria that defined eligible disasters and citizen science activities. Reviewers extracted the following elements from each project: project name and description; lead and partner entities; geographic setting; start and end dates; type of disaster; disaster phase; citizen science model; and technologies used. RESULTS: A final set of 209 projects, covering the time period 1953-2017, were included in the inventory. Projects were classified across five citizen science models: distributed or volunteer sensing (n = 19; 9%); contributory (n = 98; 47%); distributed intelligence (n = 52; 25%); collaborative research (n = 32; 15%); and collegial research (n = 8; 4%). Overall, projects were conducted across all disaster phases and most frequently for earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Although activities occurred globally, 40% of projects were set in the U.S. Academic, government, technology, and advocacy organizations were the most prevalent lead entities. Although a range of technologies were used, 77% of projects (n = 161) required an internet-connected device. These characteristics varied across citizen science models revealing important implications for applications of disaster citizen science, enhancement of disaster response capabilities, and sustainability of activities over time. CONCLUSIONS: By increasing engagement in research, disaster citizen science may empower communities to take collective action, improve system response capabilities, and generate relevant data to mitigate adverse health impacts. The project inventory established a baseline for future research to capitalize on opportunities, address limitations, and help disaster citizen science achieve its potential.

Overview of the Translation, Dissemination, and Implementation of Public Health Preparedness and Response Research and Training Initiative.

We provide an overview of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded public health preparedness and response (PHPR) research and training initiative to improve public health practice. Our objectives were to accelerate the translation, dissemination, and implementation (TDI) of promising PHPR evidence-based tools and trainings developed by the Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRC) or the Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLC) between 2008 and 2015. Nine competitive awards were made to seven academic centers to achieve predetermined TDI objectives. The outputs attained by the initiative included: user-friendly online repositories of PERRC and PERLC tools and trainings; training courses that addressed topics; a community resilience manual to synthesize, translate, and implement evidence-based programs; and Web applications that supported legal preparedness, exercise evaluation, and immunization education. The evaluation identified several best practices and potential barriers to implementation. As illustrated by the work in this supplement, the broader awareness and implementation of PERRC preparedness products and PERLC trainings and the continued evaluation of their impact could enhance the PHPR capacity and capability of the nation, which could lead to improved health security.

Public Health Implementation Considerations for State-Level Ebola Monitoring and Movement Restrictions.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes implementation considerations for Ebola-related monitoring and movement restriction policies in the United States during the 2013-2016 West Africa Ebola epidemic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2017 with 30 individuals with direct knowledge of state-level Ebola policy development and implementation processes. Individuals represented 17 jurisdictions with variation in adherence to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, census region, predominant state political affiliation, and public health governance structures, as well as the CDC. RESULTS: Interviewees reported substantial resource commitments required to implement Ebola monitoring and movement restriction policies. Movement restriction policies, including for quarantine, varied from voluntary to mandatory programs, and, occasionally, quarantine enforcement procedures lacked clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve future monitoring and movement restriction policies may include addressing surge capacity to implement these programs, protocols for providing support to affected individuals, coordination with law enforcement, and guidance on varying approaches to movement restrictions.

Influencing Factors in the Development of State-Level Movement Restriction and Monitoring Policies in Response to Ebola, United States, 2014-15.

During the 2014-15 domestic Ebola response, US states developed monitoring and movement restriction policies for potentially exposed individuals. We describe decision-making processes and factors in the development of these policies. Results may help health officials anticipate potential concerns and policy influencers in future infectious disease responses. Thirty individuals with knowledge of state-level Ebola policy development participated in semi-structured interviews conducted from January to May 2017. Interviewees represented 18 jurisdictions from diverse census regions, state political affiliations, and public health governance structures as well as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Limited and/or changing guidance and unique state-level public health, legal, and operational environments resulted in variation in policy responses. Federal guidance developed by the CDC was an important information source influencing state-level policy responses, as was available scientific evidence; however, other external factors, such as local events, contributing experts, political environment, public concern, news media, and the influence of neighboring states, contributed to additional variation. Improvements in timing, consistency, and communication of federal guidance for monitoring and movement restrictions at the state level-along with balanced approaches to addressing ethical concerns, scientific evidence, and public concern at the state level-are considerations for policy development for future disease responses.

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers.

OBJECTIVES: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness. METHODS: We reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed. RESULTS: We identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies. CONCLUSIONS: PERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:626-638).

Preparedness and emergency response research centers: using a public health systems approach to improve all-hazards preparedness and response.

In 2008, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) prepared a report identifying knowledge gaps in public health systems preparedness and emergency response and recommending near-term priority research areas. In accordance with the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act mandating new public health systems research for preparedness and emergency response, CDC provided competitive awards establishing nine Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) in accredited U.S. schools of public health. The PERRCs conducted research in four IOM-recommended priority areas: (1) enhancing the usefulness of public health preparedness and response (PHPR) training, (2) creating and maintaining sustainable preparedness and response systems, (3) improving PHPR communications, and (4) identifying evaluation criteria and metrics to improve PHPR for all hazards. The PERRCs worked closely with state and local public health, community partners, and advisory committees to produce practice-relevant research findings. PERRC research has generated more than 130 peer-reviewed publications and nearly 80 practice and policy tools and recommendations with the potential to significantly enhance our nation's PHPR to all hazards and that highlight the need for further improvements in public health systems.

Public health strategies for prevention and control of HSV-2 in persons who use drugs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) affects HIV acquisition, transmission, and disease progression. Effective medications for genital herpes and for HIV/AIDS exist. Parenteral transmission of HIV among persons who inject drugs is decreasing. Reducing sexual transmission of HIV and HSV-2 among persons who use drugs (PWUD; i.e., heroin, cocaine, "speedball", crack, methamphetamine through injection or non-injection) necessitates relevant services. METHODS: We reviewed HSV-2 sero-epidemiology and HSV-2/HIV associations in U.S.-based studies with PWUD and the general literature on HSV-2 prevention and treatment published between 1995 and 2012. We used the 6-factor Kass framework to assess relevant HSV-2 public health strategies and services in terms of their goals and effectiveness; identification of, and minimization of burdens and concerns; fair implementation; and fair balancing of benefits, burdens, and concerns. RESULTS: Eleven studies provided HSV-2 serologic test results. High HSV-2 sero-prevalence (range across studies 38-75%) and higher sero-prevalence in HIV-infected PWUD (97-100% in females; 61-74% in males) were reported. Public health strategies for HSV-2 prevention and control in PWUD can include screening or testing; knowledge of HSV-2 status and partner disclosure; education, counseling, and psychosocial risk-reduction interventions; treatment for genital herpes; and HIV antiretroviral medications for HSV-2/HIV co-infected PWUD. CONCLUSIONS: HSV-2 sero-prevalence is high among PWUD, necessitating research on development and implementation of science-based public health interventions for HSV-2 infection and HSV-2/HIV co-infections, including research on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions, to inform development and implementation of services for PWUD.