Points of entry dynamics: understanding the cross-border threats for Ebola virus disease and COVID-19 in Ghana using a logic model approach.

Background: The influx of people across the national borders of Ghana has been of interest and concern in the public health and national security community in recent times due to the low capacity for the prevention and management of epidemics and other public health risks. Although the international health regulations (IHR) stipulate core public health capacities for designated border facilities such as international airports, seaports, and ground crossings, contextual factors that influence the attainment of effective public health measures and response capabilities remain understudied. Objective: This study aims to assess the relationship between contextual factors and COVID-19 procurement to help strengthen infrastructure resources for points of entry (PoE) public health surveillance functions, thereby eliminating gaps in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of pandemic-related interventions in Ghana. Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods design, where quantitative variables were examined for relationships and effect size interactions using multiple linear regression techniques and the wild bootstrap technique. Country-level data was sourced from multiple publicly available sources using the social-ecological framework, logic model, and IHR capacity monitoring framework. The qualitative portion included triangulation with an expert panel to determine areas of convergence and divergence. Results: The most general findings were that laboratory capacity and Kotoka International Airport testing center positively predicted COVID-19 procurement, and public health response and airline boarding rule negatively predicted COVID-19 procurement. Conclusion: Contextual understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola epidemic is vital for strengthening PoE mitigation measures and preventing disease importation.

International Migration and Human Security Under the COVID-19 Pandemic

This chapter reviews the effects of the pandemic on population movements, following three human security frames of migration: (1) migration as a threat, (2) migrants as a population of concern, and (3) migration as a means for security. Despite great global efforts to debunk the myth of migration as a threat, the pandemic's nature has once again made the stereotype prominent. Distrust and xenophobia episodes have taken place worldwide, adding a new layer of complexity to the emergency. Moreover, an almost complete halt to migration closed the possibility of moving away from the direct disease threat and ensuing deprivation, not only because governments impeded new movements but also because people on the move found themselves in new precarious situations. The fall in remittances and relapses into poverty across the world are evidence of this trend, so any recovery strategy will have to include migration considerations. Finally, different migrants have fared differently against the pandemic's challenges: while specific vulnerabilities are notorious, contributions covering dangerous jobs during the emergency have also been exalted. Efforts to contain stigma and provide protection without discrimination will be necessary to potentiate the migration contribution to the pandemic recovery. Preventing further disease relapses remains a difficult problem to address. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 2022.

Investigating the WHO's Lack of Insulation from International Power Politics

The events of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and the WHO's immediate response have garnered international media attention and popular criticism against the organization for being unduly deferential to Chinese reporting and, by extension, incapable of independent investigation and pandemic management. The study examines the WHO's efforts to contain international spread of the virus whilst managing its relationship with influential member states, namely the United States and China. It argues that the International Health Regulations (2005) are poorly insulated against underlying political dynamics and competition that are largely unrelated to international public health. That is, the existing framework governing pandemic events are susceptible to manipulation by influential member states with ulterior motives who do not abide by their reporting duties. Finally, the study suggests that, by promoting greater transparency and incorporating a dispute-settlement mechanism focused on adjudicating international health law-specific matters, the WHO will be better equipped to respond to future pandemics. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023.

International Law and Digital Disease Surveillance in Pandemics: On the Margins of Regulation

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a surge in the use of digital tools to replace "classic” manual disease tracking and contact tracing across individuals. The main technical reason is based on the disease surveillance needs imposed by the magnitude of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus since 2020, particularly how these needs overwhelmed governments around the world. Such developments led to stark variations across countries in terms of legal approaches towards the use of digital tools, including self-reporting software and mobile phone apps, for both disease tracking and contact tracing. Against this backdrop, in this article I highlight some of the normative challenges posed by the digitalization of disease surveillance, underscoring its almost non-existent regulation under international law. I look back at the historical emergence of the epidemiological principles underlying this procedure, by referring to John Snow's trailblazing work in cholera control. I emphasize how the COVID-19 pandemic prompted both technical and normative shifts related to the digitalization of these procedures. Furthermore, I refer to some of the overarching obstacles for deploying international law to tackle future tensions between the public health rationale for digitalized disease tracking and contact tracing, on the one hand, and normative concerns directly related to their legality, on the other hand. Lastly, I put forward conclusions in light of the current juncture of international health law reforms, and how they so far display limited potential to herald structural changes concerning the legality of the use of digital tools in disease surveillance.

COVID-19 pandemic response in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: methods, participation and recommendations of a longitudinal cross-border study.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data collection in transborder areas can contribute to informed decision making processes when dealing with borderless health threats such as pandemics, and thus help minimize the negative health effects for its citizens. To examine the pandemic response over time and the impact of infectious disease control in a cross-border setting, a prospective longitudinal study was conducted in the border area between Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the spring of 2021, a random sample of 26,925 adult citizens selected from governmental registries was invited to collect a blood sample at home for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and to fill in an online questionnaire on attitudes and behaviour towards infection prevention measures, cross-border mobility, social network and support, COVID-19 self-reported infection(s) and symptoms, vaccination, general self-reported health and socio-demographics. In autumn 2021, participants were invited for a follow-up round. An online tool was developed to coordinate fieldwork procedures, real-time monitoring of participation and consultation of antibody test results. Furthermore, a helpdesk in all three languages for participants' support was set up. RESULTS: In the first round, 6,006 citizens in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion participated. 15.3% of the invited citizens on the Belgian side of the border participated. In the Netherlands and Germany this was respectively 27% and 23.7%. In the follow-up round 4,286 (71.4%) citizens participated for the second time. The participation rate was highest in the age group 50-69 years and lowest in > 80 in all sub regions of the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. More women participated than men. Overall, more blood samples were returned than completed questionnaires. In total, 3,344 citizens in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion completed all components of participation in both rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The collection of comparative data can help better assess the pandemic response and the impact of infectious disease control in a cross-border area. Recommendations for a longitudinal cross-border study include a centralized online environment, mapping out potential challenges related to national regulations in the preparation phase and organizing regional coordination centres to create more familiarity and trust towards the involved organisations.

Lack of Alignment Between WHO Joint External Evaluation and State Party Self-Assessment Scores Undermines Utility as Evaluation Tools for the Department of Defense.

The International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) set standards for countries to detect and respond to public health threats such as COVID-19. The US Department of Defense engages with partner nations to build IHR-related health security capacities. In this article, we compare 2 elements of the IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to determine if they align in a useful way. The version of the State Party Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool used for this study is a self-assessment of 13 capacities, while the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) requires collaboration with international subject matter experts to evaluate 19 capacities. The SPAR indicators are scored separately from 0% to 100%, whereas the JEE uses a rank-ordered scale from 1 to 5 for variable numbers of indicators in each capacity. Using 2018-2019 data from the World Health Organization, we quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the alignment of the SPAR and JEE scoring systems, using paired t tests for related capacities and 3 approaches to matching the scales. Whether using a simple, evenly divided scale for the SPAR or downscaling the SPAR scores to match with lower JEE scores, the paired t tests indicate that the JEE and SPAR scoring systems are not aligned. Many of the capacities in the JEE and SPAR are defined differently, pointing to one of the reasons for the discordance. We discuss implications for revision of the JEE and SPAR assessment tools along with ways in which the scores might be used for planning global health engagement capacity-building activities.

The Legal Duty of States to Cooperate in the Fight Against Pandemic Disease under the International Health Regulations

The paper outlines the contemporary legal framework of global health focusing on the legal duty of States to cooperate in the surveillance, prevention, and control of epidemic and pandemic disease. The paper details, in particular, the content and nature of States' duty to cooperate under the International Health Regulations – the primary international legal instrument governing the global response to such events. It also examines the role of the World Health Organization and other UN bodies in fostering cooperation between States in the fight against epidemics and pandemics. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Community Law Review is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Moving from assessments to implementation: promising practices for strengthening multisectoral antimicrobial resistance containment capacity.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global threat to human, animal, and environmental health. AMR is a technical area in the Global Health Security Agenda initiative which uses the Joint External Evaluation tool to evaluate national AMR containment capacity. This paper describes four promising practices for strengthening national antimicrobial resistance containment capacity based on the experiences of the US Agency for International Development's Medicines, Technologies, and Pharmaceutical Services Program work with 13 countries to implement their national action plans on AMR in the areas of multisectoral coordination, infection prevention and control, and antimicrobial stewardship. METHODS: We use the World Health Organization (WHO) Benchmarks on International Health Regulations Capacities (2019) to guide national, subnational, and facility actions that advance Joint External Evaluation capacity levels from 1 (no capacity) to 5 (sustainable capacity). Our technical approach is based on scoping visits, baseline Joint External Evaluation scores, benchmarks tool guidance, and country resources and priorities. RESULTS: We gleaned four promising practices to achieve AMR containment objectives: (1) implement appropriate actions using the WHO benchmarks tool, which prioritizes actions, making it easier for countries to incrementally increase their Joint External Evaluation capacity from level 1 to 5; (2) integrate AMR into national and global agendas. Ongoing agendas and programs at international, regional, and national levels provide opportunities to mainstream and interlink AMR containment efforts; (3) improve governance through multisectoral coordination on AMR. Strengthening multisectoral bodies' and their technical working groups' governance improved functioning, which led to better engagement with animal/agricultural sectors and a more coordinated COVID-19 pandemic response; and (4) mobilize and diversify funding for AMR containment. Long-term funding from diversified funding streams is vital for advancing and sustaining countries' Joint External Evaluation capacities. CONCLUSIONS: The Global Health Security Agenda work has provided practical support to countries to frame and conduct AMR containment actions in terms of pandemic preparedness and health security. The WHO benchmarks tool that Global Health Security Agenda uses serves as a standardized organizing framework to prioritize capacity-appropriate AMR containment actions and transfer skills to help operationalize national action plans on AMR.

PHEIC and Global Health Governance: Do Human Rights and Sovereignty Carry Any Value?

The emergence of COVID-19 and subsequent declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) has brought into focus the role of the international health body in global health governance. Declaration of PHEIC under the ‘International Health Regulations' empowers the WHO Director General (DG) to make emergency recommendations for measures which may require suspension of travel, halting of movement of goods suspected of spreading the disease;isolation or quarantine of suspected cases of infection and compulsory medical examination of individuals in certain cases. The declaration of a PHEIC may also amount to a threat to international peace and security as the ‘Security Council' has determined through its resolution 2177 in the case of the Ebola crisis. In this context, the article seeks to investigate the importance of the two principles that play a role in the governance of health during a pandemic—one is the principle of human rights of individuals since it is the fundamental principle which forms a part of a governance regime;second, the principle of sovereignty since it is the States that decide whether to impose the measures and the extent to which the measures must be imposed. © 2023 Institute for Human Development.

Enhancing the Understanding of Resilience in Health Systems of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: A country's health system faces pressure when hit by an unexpected shock, such as what we observe in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The concept of resilience is highly relevant in this context and is a prerequisite for a health system capable of withstanding future shocks. By exploring how the key dimensions of the resilient health system framework are applied, the present systematic review synthesizes the vital features of resilient health systems in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this review is to ascertain the relevance of health system resilience in the context of a major shock, through better understanding its dimensions, uses and implications. METHODS: The review uses the best-fit framework synthesis approach. An a priori conceptual framework was selected and a coding framework created. A systematic search identified 4284 unique citations from electronic databases and reports by non-governmental organisations, 12 of which met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and coded against the pre-existing themes. Themes outside of the a priori framework were collated to form a refined list of themes. Then, all twelve studies were revisited using the new list of themes in the context of each study. RESULTS: Ten themes were generated from the analysis. Five confirmed the a priori conceptual framework that capture the dynamic attributes of a resilient system. Five new themes were identified as foundational for achieving resilience: realigned relationships, foresight and motivation as drivers, and emergency preparedness and change management as organisational mechanisms. CONCLUSION: The refined conceptual model shows how the themes inter-connect. The foundations of resilience appear to be critical especially in resource-constrained settings to unlock the dynamic attributes of resilience. This review prompts countries to consider building the foundations of resilience described here as a priority to better prepare for future shocks.

Medical Device Regulations and custom-made device documentation: A further ten frequently asked questions and their answers.

During the 1990s, three Directives were enacted that aimed to harmonise the regulation of medical devices within the European Union (EU). Custom-made devices (CMDs) were subject to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (Medical Device Directive [MDD]), which was given effect in the UK by the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (UK MDR 2002). Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation [EU MDR]) replaced the MDD and was transposed into the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 in the UK. The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 and entered an 11-month implementation period (IP), during which any new EU legislation that was enacted also took effect in the UK. The EU MDR was scheduled to be fully implemented on 26 May 2020 (during the IP) but this was deferred for one year, until 26 May 2021 (after the IP had concluded), as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Consequently, the EU MDR was removed from the UK statute book by a further amendment to the UK MDR 2002, the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Since 1 January 2021, CMDs manufactured in Great Britain can conform to either the UK MDR 2002 (as amended) or the EU MDR (until 30 June 2023) while devices manufactured in Northern Ireland are subject to the EU MDR alone. CMDs must be supplied with a statement, a label and, depending on the risk class, instructions for use; this paper answers ten questions regarding this documentation following these legislative changes.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response.

COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption; and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America - Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

La COVID-19 expuso grandes brechas en las respuestas locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales a las emergencias de salud pública. En preparación para la reunión extraordinaria de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud para considerar los beneficios de elaborar un instrumento internacional sobre la preparación frente a las pandemias, el Instituto O'Neill, en colaboración con la Fundación para los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, convocó a 30 de las principales autoridades mundiales en materia de derecho, financiamiento, ciencia biomédica, implementación y respuesta a emergencias de salud, así como a líderes de organizaciones internacionales prominentes. A esta reunión le siguieron consultas regionales convocadas en América Latina y el Caribe, África y el sudeste asiático. Estas consultas con expertos de alto nivel generaron debates en profundidad acerca de las debilidades y brechas persistentes en la preparación frente a las pandemias y qué podría incluirse en un nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cómo abordarlas. Las organizaciones intergubernamentales regionales como la Organización Panamericana de la Salud pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo relacionados para elaborar instrumentos financieros que puedan aliviar las perturbaciones económicas sistémicas; y los centros regionales de excelencia en investigación y producción pueden formar una sólida primera línea de acción para producir medicamentos y vacunas rápidamente durante una pandemia. Con esta investigación centrada en la respuesta regional a la COVID-19, podemos analizar las respuestas de los países de forma individual y colectiva para observar la manera en que América Latina y el Caribe pueden capitalizar y aprovechar sus conexiones regionales para fortalecer su preparación y respuesta frente a una pandemia. Al determinar cuáles son las brechas existentes y examinar las respuestas y los enfoques adoptados por la OPS, podemos comprender mejor el papel de las organizaciones regionales e internacionales y sus centros colaboradores en la preparación y respuesta frente a las pandemias.

A COVID-19 expôs grandes lacunas nas respostas globais, regionais, estaduais e locais a emergências de saúde pública. Nos preparativos para a Sessão Especial da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde para avaliar os benefícios de desenvolver um instrumento internacional de preparação para pandemias, o Instituto O'Neill, em parceria com a Fundação para os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, reuniu 30 das principais autoridades mundiais em direito sanitário global, financiamento, ciências biomédicas, implementação e resposta a emergências, além de líderes de organizações internacionais proeminentes. Essa reunião foi seguida por consultas regionais convocadas na América Latina/Caribe, na África e no sudeste da Ásia. Essas consultas com especialistas de alto nível geraram discussões minuciosas sobre os pontos fracos e as lacunas persistentes na preparação global para pandemias e o que poderia ser incluído em um novo acordo internacional para resolvê-los. Organizações intergovernamentais regionais, como a OPAS, podem trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento para desenvolver instrumentos financeiros capazes de atenuar a ruptura econômica sistêmica; por outro lado, centros regionais de excelência em pesquisa e fabricação podem oferecer uma linha de frente expressiva para a rápida produção de medicamentos e vacinas durante uma pandemia. Usando os dados da nossa pesquisa sobre a resposta regional à COVID-19, podemos analisar as respostas dos países de forma individual e coletiva para avaliar como os países da América Latina e do Caribe podem capitalizar e alavancar suas conexões regionais para fortalecer sua preparação e resposta à pandemia. Ao identificar lacunas existentes e analisar as respostas e abordagens adotadas pela OPAS, podemos compreender melhor o papel das organizações internacionais e regionais e de seus centros colaboradores na preparação e resposta a pandemias.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts.

Background: Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE). Methods: To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results. Results: We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies. Conclusion: We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

A Pandemic Treaty: Learning From the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The World Health Organization recently began developing a "pandemic treaty" in response to the perceived failures of the global COVID-19 response. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which obligates members to certain global standards in tobacco control, is an example of a global public health agreement that may be used as a model for the pandemic treaty. Several challenges related to the convention, many from the tobacco industry itself, must be addressed if it is to be used as a prototype for a pandemic agreement. These include harm reduction policies, private-sector involvement, and its impact in low- and middle-income countries. A pandemic treaty may encounter similar challenges faced by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, particularly from industry groups with financial interests related to infectious disease control and prevention. Addressing challenges at the outset may facilitate the development and implementation of a more robust international instrument.

The International Regime Governing Notification, Information-Sharing and Early Warning Applicable to Epidemic Outbreaks

The international regime governing information sharing in the early phases of epidemic outbreaks, including the obligations to promptly report suspected cases and share relevant information, plays a determinant role in triggering protective actions and in limiting the spread at the domestic and international levels. Yet, States' reluctance to notify and the World Health Organisation (WHO) dependence on official information to activate the international alert system pose significant challenges to its functioning. This paper aims at discussing notification, information-sharing and early warning requirements, and at ex-ploring to what extent international rules can be further strengthened. After some in-troductory remarks (I.), the benefits of and barriers to notification in infectious diseases outbreaks are presented (II.);the strengths and limitations of the international framework governing notification and information sharing under the International Health Regulations are explored (III.);and the functioning of the information-sharing regime during Covid-19 is briefly discussed (IV.). Some concluding remarks are finally proposed on strengthening the international information sharing regime applicable to epidemic outbreaks (V.). © 2022, Duncker und Humblot GmbH. All rights reserved.

Do We Need to Protect the Entire World Population from Health Threats Through One Global Biomedical Surveillance and Response System? A Human Rights-Based Comment on the Proposed WHO Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness and Response

The World Health Organization (WHO) and its member States are currently in the process of negotiating a new multilateral treaty on pandemic preparedness and re-sponse. At the same time, the existing international legal framework regulating global health emergencies – the International Health Regulations (IHR) – are being revised. Overall, substantive proposals made so far for inclusion into the new treaty/revised IHR provide for a further centralisation of control over, and management of, the collectivity of all human bodies through increased digitally-based biomedical surveillance at WHO level to detect potential health threats in order to rapidly adopt, coordinate, and implement global medical and non-medical emergency countermeasures. This contribution shows that this substantive focus is driven by the Global Health Security (GHS) doctrine that has dominated WHO's, its member States', and its public-private partners' response to Covid-19. This is problematic because it will not only entrench the GHS doctrine further into international health law but also endorse and routinise many of the securitised global medical and non-medical coun-termeasures adopted in response to Covid-19 for responses to future health threats. (Emerging) evidence shows, however, that these countermeasures have been ineffective and resulted in far-reaching interferences with people's human rights in virtually every country around the world. By way of example, this is illustrated with an analysis of three GHS-in-formed medical and non-medical Covid-19 countermeasures: lockdowns, constant bio-surveillance, and the fast-track development, global promotion, distribution, and admin-istration of investigational vaccines. The contribution ends with a call on those responsible for the treaty negotiation and IHR revision processes to take due account of WHO's and its member States' human rights duties and responsibilities for human rights in these processes;and to question the exclusive focus on centrally managed, technocratic, biomedical ap-proaches to pandemic preparedness and response. © 2022, Duncker und Humblot GmbH. All rights reserved.

"Digital global health diplomacy" for climate change and human security in the Anthropocene.

The COVID-19 pandemic has now affected everyone, threatening every aspect of our well-being with over 617597680 confirmed cases, including 6532705 deaths globally. The context of the Anthropocene is the backdrop for the novel, interlinked, systemic, and global threats. Anthropocene is a term proposed to designate the era in which human beings have become predominant drivers of planetary change, drastically altering the planet's biosphere. The concept of global health diplomacy (GHD), which connects the domains of health and international relations, has a critical role in advancing human security. Thus, there is a need for new forms of diplomacy, which is critically important in this complex intermestic and interdependent Anthropocene era, where globalization has inevitably linked nations and population health. This paper introduces, analyzes, and attempts to define "Digital Global Health Diplomacy" (DGHD), which has gained great momentum during this COVID-19 pandemic with concurrent health and human security threats. The application of digital formats to the existing traditional structures for dialogue has become a more popular tool recently. Furthermore, digital means are being used during the COVID-19 pandemic to share the health diplomacy discourse at subnational, supranational, international, regional, and global platforms. DGHD reminds us again of the criticality of this multidisciplinary concept involving the contributions of diplomats, global health specialists, digital technology experts, economists, trade specialists, international law, political scientists, etc., in the global policymaking process. If used effectively by trained global health diplomats through innovative digital platforms, DGHD has a great scope of delivering results faster and has more reach than the traditional approach.

Continuing Contributions of Field Epidemiology Training Programs to Global COVID-19 Response.

We documented the contributions of Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) trainees and graduates to global COVID-19 preparedness and response efforts. During February-July 2021, we conducted surveys designed in accordance with the World Health Organization's COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan. We quantified trainee and graduate engagement in responses and identified themes through qualitative analysis of activity descriptions. Thirty-two programs with 2,300 trainees and 7,372 graduates reported near-universal engagement across response activities, particularly those aligned with the FETP curriculum. Graduates were more frequently engaged than were trainees in pandemic response activities. Common themes in the activity descriptions were epidemiology and surveillance, leading risk communication, monitoring and assessment, managing logistics and operations, training and capacity building, and developing guidelines and protocols. We describe continued FETP contributions to the response. Findings indicate the wide-ranging utility of FETPs to strengthen countries' emergency response capacity, furthering global health security.

Sustainable strategies for Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness in Africa: a case study on lessons learnt in countries neighbouring the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: From May 2018 to September 2022, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) experienced seven Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks within its borders. During the 10th EVD outbreak (2018-2020), the largest experienced in the DRC and the second largest and most prolonged EVD outbreak recorded globally, a WHO risk assessment identified nine countries bordering the DRC as moderate to high risk from cross border importation. These countries implemented varying levels of Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions. This case study highlights the gains and shortfalls with the Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions within the various contexts of these countries against the background of a renewed and growing commitment for global epidemic preparedness highlighted during recent World Health Assembly events. MAIN TEXT: Several positive impacts from preparedness support to countries bordering the affected provinces in the DRC were identified, including development of sustained capacities which were leveraged upon to respond to the subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Shortfalls such as lost opportunities for operationalizing cross-border regional preparedness collaboration and better integration of multidisciplinary perspectives, vertical approaches to response pillars such as surveillance, over dependence on external support and duplication of efforts especially in areas of capacity building were also identified. A recurrent theme that emerged from this case study is the propensity towards implementing short-term interventions during active Ebola virus disease outbreaks for preparedness rather than sustainable investment into strengthening systems for improved health security in alignment with IHR obligations, the Sustainable Development Goals and advocating global policy for addressing the larger structural determinants underscoring these outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several international frameworks established at the global level for emergency preparedness, a shortfall exists between global policy and practice in countries at high risk of cross border transmission from persistent Ebola virus disease outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. With renewed global health commitment for country emergency preparedness resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and cumulating in a resolution for a pandemic preparedness treaty, the time to review and address these gaps and provide recommendations for more sustainable and integrative approaches to emergency preparedness towards achieving global health security is now.

A Global Health Law Trilogy: Transformational Reforms to Strengthen Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response.

This is a pivotal moment in the global governance response to pandemic threats, with crucial global health law reforms being undertaken simultaneously in the coming years: the revision of the International Health Regulations, the implementation of the GHSA Legal Preparedness Action Package, and the negotiation of a new Pandemic Treaty. Rather than looking at these reforms in isolation, it will be necessary to examine how they fit together, considering: how these reforms can complement each other to support pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response; what financing mechanisms are necessary to ensure sustainable health governance; and why vital norms of equity, social justice, and human rights must underpin this new global health system.