Your browser doesn't support javascript.
An analysis of International Health Regulations Emergency Committees and Public Health Emergency of International Concern Designations.
Mullen, Lucia; Potter, Christina; Gostin, Lawrence O; Cicero, Anita; Nuzzo, Jennifer B.
  • Mullen L; Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, Maryland, USA lmullen3@jhu.edu.
  • Potter C; Department of Environmental Health & Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Gostin LO; Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Cicero A; Department of Environmental Health & Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Nuzzo JB; O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown Law, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
BMJ Glob Health ; 5(6)2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-603208
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Nine events have been assessed for potential declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is defined as an extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk to other states through international spread and requires a coordinated international response. The WHO Director-General convenes Emergency Committees (ECs) to provide their advice on whether an event constitutes a PHEIC. The EC rationales have been criticised for being non-transparent and contradictory to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This first comprehensive analysis of EC rationale provides recommendations to increase clarity of EC decisions which will strengthen the IHR and WHO's legitimacy in future outbreaks.

METHODS:

66 EC statements were reviewed from nine public health outbreaks of influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, polio, Ebola virus disease, Zika, yellow fever and coronavirus disease-2019. Statements were analysed to determine which of the three IHR criteria were noted as contributing towards the EC's justification on whether to declare a PHEIC and what language was used to explain the decision.

RESULTS:

Interpretation of the criteria were often vague and applied inconsistently. ECs often failed to describe and justify which criteria had been satisfied.

DISCUSSION:

Guidelines must be developed for the standardised interpretation of IHR core criteria. The ECs must clearly identify and justify which criteria have contributed to their rationale for or against PHEIC declaration.

CONCLUSION:

Striving for more consistency and transparency in EC justifications would benefit future deliberations and provide more understanding and support for the process.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Public Health / Coronavirus Infections / Disaster Planning / Emergencies / International Health Regulations / Pandemics Type of study: Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2020 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjgh-2020-002502

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Public Health / Coronavirus Infections / Disaster Planning / Emergencies / International Health Regulations / Pandemics Type of study: Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2020 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjgh-2020-002502