A rapid review of best practices in the development of risk registers for public health emergency management.

Introduction: Public health organizations (PHO) must prepare to respond to a range of emergencies. This represents an ongoing challenge in an increasingly connected world, where the scope, complexity, and diversity of public health threats (PHT) have expanded, as exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk registers (RR) offer a framework for identifying and managing threats, which can be employed by PHOs to better identify and characterize health threats. The aim of this review is to establish best practices (BP) for the development of RRs within Public Health Emergency Management (PHEM). Methods: In partnership with a librarian from Health Canada (HC), and guided by the Cochrane Rapid Review Guideline, journal articles were retrieved through MEDLINE, and a comprehensive search strategy was applied to obtain grey literature through various databases. Articles were limited to those that met the following criteria: published on or after January 1, 2010, published in the English language and published within an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development setting. Results: 57 articles were included for synthesis. 41 papers specifically discussed the design of RRs. The review identified several guidelines to establish RRs in PHEM, including forward-looking, multidisciplinary, transparent, fit-for-purpose, and utilizing a systems approach to analyze and prioritize threats. Expert consultations, literature reviews, and prioritization methods such as multi-criteria-decision-analysis (MCDA) are often used to support the development of RRs. A minimum five-year-outlook is applied to assess PHTs, which are revisited yearly, and iteratively revised as new knowledge arises. Discussion: Based upon this review, RRs offer a systems approach to PHEM that can be expanded to facilitate the analysis of disparate threats. These approaches should factor in the multidimensionality of threats, need for multi-sectoral inputs, and use of vulnerability analyses that consider inherent drivers. Further research is needed to understand how drivers modify threats. The BPs and recommendations highlighted in our research can be adopted in the practice of PHEM to characterize the public health (PH) risk environment at a given point in time and support PHOs policy and decision-making.

A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization.

Background: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a decision support tool that can be used in public health emergency management. The use of a One Health lens in MCDA can support the prioritization of threats and interventions which cut across the human, animal, and environmental domains. Previous literature reviews have focused on creating a snapshot of MCDA methodological trends. Our study provides an update to the MCDA methods literature with key considerations from a One Health perspective and addresses the application of MCDA in an all-hazards decision-making context. Methods: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, the CAB database, and a limited online gray literature search in partnership with a librarian from Health Canada. Articles were limited to those published in the year 2010 or later in a high-income setting (OECD member countries). Results: Sixty-two articles were included for synthesis. Of these articles, most were Canadian studies (20%); and prioritized health risks, threats, and interventions in the human domain (69%). Six commonly used prioritization criteria were identified: threat, health, intervention, strategic, social, and economic impact. Stakeholders were engaged in 85% of studies and commonly consisted of government groups, non-governmental groups, subject matter experts, and the public. While most articles (65%) included elements of One Health based on our definition, only 5 studies (9%) explicitly acknowledged One Health as a guiding principle for the study. Forty seven percentage of studies noted that MCDA was beneficial in supporting the decision-making process. Conclusion: Current literature on health prioritization presents some variability in the depth of integration of the One Health framework and on the use of various MCDA methodologies given prioritization objectives. Studies which applied a comprehensive One Health approach, prioritized disparate threats, or conducted cyclical prioritizations for governing bodies were broad in scope, but sparse. The results of our review indicate the need for better guidance on the integration of a One Health approach and the use of various MCDA methods given the main prioritization objectives.