An Epidemic Recovery Framework to Jump-start Analysis, Planning, and Action on a Neglected Aspect of Global Health Security.

Epidemic readiness and response command the disproportionate attention of health security decision makers, planners, and practitioners, overshadowing recovery. How patients and their families, health organizations, community sectors, and entire societies recuperate from major outbreaks requires more systematic study and better translation into policy and guidance. To help remedy this neglected aspect of health emergency management, we offer a working definition for epidemic recovery and a preliminary model of postepidemic recovery. Guiding this framework's development are insights gleaned from the more mature study of postdisaster reconstruction and rehabilitation as well as recognition that postoutbreak recovery-which involves infectious disease, a biological hazard-presents challenges and opportunities distinct from events involving geological or meteorological hazards. Future work includes developing a consensus around characteristics of successful epidemic recovery, applying these metrics to support preincident planning for postepidemic recovery, and using such a scheme to track and inform actual recovery from an epidemic.

The Local Health Department Mandate and Capacity for Community Engagement in Emergency Preparedness: A National View Over Time.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) perform the highly valued, yet time- and staff-intensive work of community engagement in public health emergency preparedness (CE-PHEP) when the Great Recession has had lingering effects on their organizational capacity. OBJECTIVE: Track the extent to which LHDs still embrace collaborative, whole community approaches to PHEP in a historically low resource environment. DESIGN: National survey in 2015 of LHDs using a self-administered online questionnaire regarding LHD practices and resources for CE-PHEP first fielded in 2012 ("The Community Engagement for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Survey"). Differences in 2015 survey responses were reviewed, and comparisons made between 2012 and 2015 responses. SETTING: Randomized sample of 811 LHDs drawn from 2565 LHDs that were invited to participate in the 2010 National Profile of LHDs and participated in the 2012 CE-PHEP survey. Sample selection was stratified by geographic location and size of population served. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency preparedness coordinators reporting on the LHDs they serve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Community engagement in public health emergency preparedness intensity as measured by a scoring system that valued specific practices on the basis of the community capacity and public participation they represented. RESULTS: Survey response was 30%; 243 LHDs participated. The CE-PHEP activities and intensity scores remained unchanged from 2012 to 2015. Local health departments that reported having an explicit CE-PHEP policy and experienced CE-PHEP staff member--2 of the top 3 predictors of CE-PHEP intensity--have dropped between 2012 and 2015. The numbers of LHDs with a CE-PHEP budget, also an important predictor of intensity, have not increased in a statistically significant way during that same period. CONCLUSIONS: Local health departments appear to be in a CE-PHEP holding pattern, presumably pushed forward by the doctrinal focus on partner-centered preparedness but held back by capacity issues, in particular, limited staff and partner support. Local health departments operating in low-resource environments are encouraged to formalize their CE-PHEP policy to advance performance in this arena.

High-Performing Local Health Departments Relate Their Experiences at Community Engagement in Emergency Preparedness.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) are implementing a national mandate to engage community partners, including individuals, businesses, and community- and faith-based organizations in the larger public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) enterprise. OBJECTIVE: Investigate how LHDs of varying size and resource levels successfully engage the community in PHEP to help uncover "best practices" that aspiring agencies can replicate, particularly in low-resource environments. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews with practitioners from 9 highly performing LHDs. SETTING: Participating agencies comprised equal amounts of small (serving <50 000 residents), medium (serving 50 000-500 000 residents), and large (serving >500 000 residents) LHDs and were diverse in terms of geographic region, rural-urban environment, and governance structure. PARTICIPANTS: A cross section of LHD staff (n = 34) including agency leaders, preparedness coordinators, public information officers, and health educators/promoters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Local health department performance at community engagement as determined by top scores in 2 national LHD surveys (2012, 2015) regarding community engagement in PHEP. RESULTS: Based on key informant accounts, high-performing LHDs show a holistic, organization-wide commitment to, rather than discrete focus on, community engagement. Best practices clustered around 5 domains: administration (eg, top executive who models collaborative behavior), organizational culture (eg, solicitous rather than prescriptive posture regarding community needs), social capital (eg, mining preexisting community connections held by other LHD programs), workforce skills (eg, cultural competence), and methods/tactics (eg, visibility in community events unrelated to PHEP). CONCLUSIONS: For LHDs that wish to enhance their performance at community engagement in PHEP, change will entail adoption of evidence-based interventions (the technical "what") as well as evidence-based administrative approaches (the managerial "how"). Smaller, rural LHDs should be encouraged that, in the case of PHEP community engagement, they have unique social assets that may help offset advantages that larger, more materially resourced metropolitan health departments may have.

Public Health Resilience Checklist for High-Consequence Infectious Diseases-Informed by the Domestic Ebola Response in the United States.

CONTEXT: The experiences of communities that responded to confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease in the United States provide a rare opportunity for collective learning to improve resilience to future high-consequence infectious disease events. DESIGN: Key informant interviews (n = 73) were conducted between February and November 2016 with individuals who participated in Ebola virus disease planning or response in Atlanta, Georgia; Dallas, Texas; New York, New York; or Omaha, Nebraska; or had direct knowledge of response activities. Participants represented health care; local, state, and federal public health; law; local and state emergency management; academia; local and national media; individuals affected by the response; and local and state governments. Two focus groups were then conducted in New York and Dallas, and study results were vetted with an expert advisory group. RESULTS: Participants focused on a number of important areas to improve public health resilience to high-consequence infectious disease events, including governance and leadership, communication and public trust, quarantine and the law, monitoring programs, environmental decontamination, and waste management. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provided the basis for an evidence-informed checklist outlining specific actions for public health authorities to take to strengthen public health resilience to future high-consequence infectious disease events.

A national survey on health department capacity for community engagement in emergency preparedness.

CONTEXT: Limited systematic knowledge exists about how public health practitioners and policy makers can best strengthen community engagement in public health emergency preparedness ("CE-PHEP"), a top priority for US national health security. OBJECTIVES: To investigate local health department (LHD) adoption of federally recommended participatory approaches to PHEP and to identify LHD organizational characteristics associated with more intense CE-PHEP. DESIGN: National survey in 2012 of LHDs using a self-administered Web-based questionnaire regarding LHD practices and resources for CE-PHEP ("The Community Engagement for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Survey"). Differences in survey responses were examined, and a multivariate analysis was used to test whether LHD organizational characteristics were associated with differences in CE-PHEP intensity. SETTING: A randomized sample of 754 LHDs drawn from the 2565 LHDs that had been invited to participate in the 2010 National Profile of LHDs. Sample selection was stratified by the size of population served and geographic location. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency preparedness coordinators reporting on their respective LHDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: CE-PHEP intensity as measured with a scoring system that rated specific CE-PHEP practices by LHD according to the relative degrees of public participation and community capacity they represented. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 61%. The most common reported CE-PHEP activity was disseminating personal preparedness materials (90%); the least common was convening public forums on PHEP planning (22%). LHD characteristics most strongly associated with more intense CE-PHEP were having a formal CE-PHEP policy, allocating funds for CE-PHEP, having strong support from community-based organizations, and employing a coordinator with prior CE experience. CONCLUSIONS: Promising ways to engage community partners more fully in the PHEP enterprise are institutionalizing CE-PHEP objectives, employing sufficient and skilled staff, leveraging current community-based organization support, and aligning budgets with the value of CE-PHEP to US national health security.

Modeling epidemic recovery: An expert elicitation on issues and approaches.

Since the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in late 2019, the world has been in a state of high alert and reactivity. Once the acute stage of the infectious disease crisis does abate, however, few if any communities will have a detailed roadmap to guide recovery - that is, the process of becoming whole again and working to reduce similar, future risk. In both research and policy contexts where data are absent or difficult to obtain, expert judgment can help fill the void. Between November 2019 and February 2020, we conducted an expert elicitation process, asking fourteen key informants - with specializations in infectious diseases, disaster recovery, community resilience, public health, emergency management, and policymaking - to identify the design principles, priority issues, and field experiences that should inform development of an epidemic recovery model. Participants argued that recovery from epidemics is distinct from natural disasters due to epidemics' potential to produce effects over large areas for extended periods of time and ability to generate high levels of fear, anticipatory anxiety, and antisocial behavior. Furthermore, epidemic recovery is a complex, nonlinear process involving many domains - political, economic, sociocultural, infrastructural, and human health. As such, an adequate model of post-epidemic recovery should extend beyond strictly medical matters, specify units of interest (e.g., individual, family, institution, sector, community), capture differing trajectories of recovery given social determinants of health, and be fit for use depending upon user group (e.g., policymakers, responders, researchers). This formative study commences a longer-term effort to generate indicators for a holistic, transformative epidemic recovery at the community level.

Anthropological foundations of public health; the case of COVID 19.

OBJECTIVES: The complex societal spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. indicates a need to recognize sociocultural forces to best understand and respond to the pandemic. This essay describes four principles of anthropology and sister disciplines that underlie the theory and practice of public health. METHODS: Research following anthropological and related approaches is reviewed to provide examples of the four principles from COVID-19 in the U.S. RESULTS: 1. What counts as sickness, disease, injury, pathology, is fundamentally a matter of historically situated social ideas and values. 2. The ways in which societies are organized is a fundamental source of pathologies and their distributions within societies. 3. Conversely, health conditions can substantially alter the organization of societies. 4. Public health responses are social processes that affect intervention outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Anthropological approaches are recommended to address several facets of public health practice: problem analysis, intervention design, evaluation, and the public health enterprise itself.

Longitudinal Risk Communication: A Research Agenda for Communicating in a Pandemic.

In this paper, we present a research agenda for longitudinal risk communication during a global pandemic. Starting from an understanding that traditional approaches to risk communication for epidemics, crises, and disasters have focused on short-duration events, we acknowledge the limitations of existing theories, frameworks, and models for both research and practice in a rapidly changing communication environment. We draw from scholarship in communication, sociology, anthropology, public health, emergency management, law, and technology to identify research questions that are fundamental to the communication challenges that have emerged under the threat of COVID-19. We pose a series of questions focused around 5 topics, then offer a catalog of prior research to serve as points of departure for future research efforts. This compiled agenda offers guidance to scholars engaging in practitioner-informed research and provides risk communicators with a set of substantial research questions to guide future knowledge needs.

Critical Capability Needs for Reduction of Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Indoors.

Coordination of efforts to assess the challenges and pain points felt by industries from around the globe working to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the indoor environment as well as innovative solutions applied to meet these challenges is mandatory. Indoor infectious viral disease transmission (such as coronavirus, norovirus, influenza) is a complex problem that needs better integration of our current knowledge and intervention strategies. Critical to providing a reduction in transmission is to map the four core technical areas of environmental microbiology, transmission science, building science, and social science. To that end a three-stage science and innovation Summit was held to gather information on current standards, policies and procedures applied to reduce transmission in built spaces, as well as the technical challenges, science needs, and research priorities. The Summit elucidated steps than can be taken to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoors and calls for significant investments in research to enhance our knowledge of viral pathogen persistence and transport in the built environment, risk assessment and mitigation strategy such as processes and procedures to reduce the risk of exposure and infection through building systems operations, biosurveillance capacity, communication form leadership, and stakeholder engagement for optimal response. These findings reflect the effective application of existing knowledge and standards, emerging science, and lessons-learned from current efforts to confront SARS-CoV-2.

The public's role in COVID-19 vaccination: Human-centered recommendations to enhance pandemic vaccine awareness, access, and acceptance in the United States.

Given the social and economic upheavals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, political leaders, health officials, and members of the public are eager for solutions. One of the most promising, if they can be successfully developed, is vaccines. While the technological development of such countermeasures is currently underway, a key social gap remains. Past experience in routine and crisis contexts demonstrates that uptake of vaccines is more complicated than simply making the technology available. Vaccine uptake, and especially the widespread acceptance of vaccines, is a social endeavor that requires consideration of human factors. To provide a starting place for this critical component of a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States, the 23-person Working Group on Readying Populations for COVID-19 Vaccines was formed. One outcome of this group is a synthesis of the major challenges and opportunities associated with a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign and empirically-informed recommendations to advance public understanding of, access to, and acceptance of vaccines that protect against SARS-CoV-2. While not inclusive of all possible steps than could or should be done to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination, the working group believes that the recommendations provided are essential for a successful vaccination program.

Influence of Community and Culture in the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in a Pandemic Situation: Deliberative Democracy Study.

BACKGROUND: Stark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity. OBJECTIVE: Given the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels? METHODS: Research using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others' views. RESULTS: Participants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Maryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.

A Public Health Systems View of Risk Communication About Zika.

OBJECTIVES: The spread of Zika virus throughout Latin America and parts of the United States in 2016 and 2017 presented a challenge to public health communicators. The objective of our study was to describe emergency risk communication practices during the 2016-2017 Zika outbreak to inform future infectious disease communication efforts. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 public health policy makers and practitioners, 10 public information officers, and 5 vector-control officials from May through August 2017. RESULTS: Within the public health macro-environment, extended outbreak timeframe, government trust, US residence status, and economic insecurity set the backdrop for Zika communication efforts. Limited resources, staffing, and partnerships negatively affected public health structural capacity for communication efforts. Public health communicators and practitioners used a range of processes and practices to engage in education and outreach, including fieldwork, community meetings, and contact with health care providers. Overall, public health agencies' primary goals were to prevent Zika infection, reduce transmission, and prevent adverse birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from this disease response included understanding the macro-environment, developing partnerships across agencies and the community, and valuing diverse message platforms. These lessons can be used to improve communication approaches for health officials at the local, state, and federal levels during future infectious disease outbreaks.

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

Aerial spraying of products to kill larvae or adult mosquitoes is a public health measure used to control vector-borne diseases. In some outbreaks, the intervention has evoked controversy and community resistance. This study evaluated how local opinion leaders in US localities affected by Zika think about community engagement in public health policies for outbreak response. In December 2017 through March 2018, 4 focus groups were convened in Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Miami, FL, and Brooklyn, NY. They discussed a hypothetical scenario that featured vector control by aerial spraying. Participants (N = 20) more readily accepted this vector control method under 4 conditions: They were informed of alternatives, benefits, and risks for human health and the environment. Public health claims were backed by objective evidence and an authority figure genuinely working in the community's interests. They received timely notice about how to mitigate toxin exposure. And, aerial spraying helped to protect vulnerable individuals. The community engagement requirements of the local opinion leaders resonate with core principles of recent public health ethics frameworks: namely, personal autonomy, transparency, reasonableness, and solidarity. Participants foresaw problems with community consent in an era of growing social media use and mistrust in governmental and scientific authority. They also debated whether health authorities should use moral-based arguments, in addition to science-based ones, to communicate aerial spraying's risks and benefits.

The COPEWELL Rubric: A Self-Assessment Toolkit to Strengthen Community Resilience to Disasters.

Measurement is a community endeavor that can enhance the ability to anticipate, withstand, and recover from a disaster, as well as foster learning and adaptation. This project's purpose was to develop a self-assessment toolkit-manifesting a bottom-up, participatory approach-that enables people to envision community resilience as a concrete, desirable, and obtainable goal; organize a cross-sector effort to evaluate and enhance factors that influence resilience; and spur adoption of interventions that, in a disaster, would lessen impacts, preserve community functioning, and prompt a more rapid recovery. In 2016-2018, we engaged in a process of literature review, instrument development, stakeholder engagement, and local field-testing, to produce a self-assessment toolkit (or "rubric") built on the Composite of Post-Event Well-being (COPEWELL) model that predicts post-disaster community functioning and resilience. Co-developing the rubric with community-based users, we generated self-assessment instruments and process guides that localities can more readily absorb and adapt. Applied in three field tests, the Social Capital and Cohesion materials equip users to assess this domain at different geo-scales. Chronicling the rubric's implementation, this account sheds further light on tensions between community resilience assessment research and practice, and potential reasons why few of the many current measurement systems have been applied.

Too Many Patients A Framework to Guide Statewide Allocation of Scarce Mechanical Ventilation During Disasters.

The threat of a catastrophic public health emergency causing life-threatening illness or injury on a massive scale has prompted extensive federal, state, and local preparedness efforts. Modeling studies suggest that an influenza pandemic similar to that of 1918 would require ICU and mechanical ventilation capacity that is significantly greater than what is available. Several groups have published recommendations for allocating life-support measures during a public health emergency. Because there are multiple ethically permissible approaches to allocating scarce life-sustaining resources and because the public will bear the consequences of these decisions, knowledge of public perspectives and moral points of reference on these issues is critical. Here we describe a critical care disaster resource allocation framework developed following a statewide community engagement process in Maryland. It is intended to assist hospitals and public health agencies in their independent and coordinated response to an officially declared catastrophic health emergency in which demand for mechanical ventilators exceeds the capabilities of all surge response efforts and in which there has been an executive order to implement scarce resource allocation procedures. The framework, built on a basic scoring system with modifications for specific considerations, also creates an opportunity for the legal community to review existing laws and liability protections in light of a specific disaster response process.

How Prepared Are the Public and Responders for Nuclear Terrorism?

The theme of the 2017 Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements was "Assessment of National Efforts in Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Terrorism: Is There a Need for Realignment to Close Remaining Gaps?" In the "Guidance, Training and Exercises: Emergency Responders" session, speakers explored our level of public and responder preparedness and the challenges to being adequately prepared. There were three themes expressed from the perspective of emergency responders. The federal government is effective at creating guidance and a systematic preparedness process but not so effective at engaging and implementing guidance and processes at the state and local level for technical hazards like radiation. Second, preparedness at the local level is driven by local leadership and champions who see the problem through a "different lens." These champions often have to overcome significant institutional, political, and social barriers associated with preparing for radiological events. Finally, there is a limit to the amount of general preparedness and public information that can be absorbed in the absence of a perceived threat. Occasionally, events lead to a heightened concern that offers a window of opportunity for a "learning moment."