ABSTRACT
Objectives: The global response to COVID-19 inherited a long history of preparedness features pertaining to various threats, including bioterrorism, (re)-emerging infectious diseases, and pandemics. We describe the evolution of pandemic preparedness frameworks, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted an integrative literature review of publicly available documents, including grey and scientific literature, on pandemic preparedness frameworks. We relied on social science literature as a main source and used search keywords: pandemic preparedness, H1N1, COVID-19, "whole-of-society"/"whole-of-community." Results: The H1N1 pandemic (2009-2010) tested pandemic preparedness frameworks. Lessons-learned reports concluded that the global H1N1 response were too strong and unnecessarily alarming. Such critiques, pandemic fatigue, and budgetary cuts post-2008 explain lack of preparedness for COVID-19. Critiques culminated in a shift towards a "whole-of-society" approach to health crises, although its uptake has not been ideal. Conclusion: Traditional preparedness regime limits arose again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The "whole-of-society" approach was not fully deployed in COVID-19 responses. A "whole-of-organizations" approach could be designed, ensuring that countries consider local organizations' potential to partake in containing infectious disease and counter undesirable side-effects of non-pharmaceutical measures.
