Non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries: the ECDC-JRC Response Measures Database.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries implemented a wide set of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), sometimes with limited knowledge on their effect and impact on population. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) developed a Response Measures Database (ECDC-JRC RMD) to archive NPIs in 30 EU/EEA countries from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2022. We aimed to introduce a tool for the wider scientific community to assess COVID-19 NPIs effect and impact in the EU/EEA. We give an overview of the ECDC-JRC RMD rationale and structure, including a brief analysis of the main NPIs applied in 2020, before the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. The ECDC-JRC RMD organises NPIs through a three-level hierarchical structure and uses four additional parameters ('status', 'implementation', 'target group' and 'geographical representation') to provide further information on the implementation of each measure. Features including the ready-for-analysis, downloadable format and its agile taxonomy and structure highlight the potential of the ECDC-JRC RMD to facilitate further NPI analysis and optimise decision making on public health response policies.

Public health considerations for transitioning beyond the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU/EEA.

Many countries, including some within the EU/EEA, are in the process of transitioning from the acute pandemic phase. During this transition, it is crucial that countries' strategies and activities remain guided by clear COVID-19 control objectives, which increasingly will focus on preventing and managing severe outcomes. Therefore, attention must be given to the groups that are particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including individuals in congregate and healthcare settings. In this phase of pandemic management, a strong focus must remain on transitioning testing approaches and systems for targeted surveillance of COVID-19, capitalising on and strengthening existing systems for respiratory virus surveillance. Furthermore, it will be crucial to focus on lessons learned from the pandemic to enhance preparedness and to enact robust systems for the preparedness, detection, rapid investigation and assessment of new and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Filling existing knowledge gaps, including behavioural insights, can help guide the response to future resurgences of SARS-CoV-2 and/or the emergence of other pandemics. Finally, 'vaccine agility' will be needed to respond to changes in people's behaviours, changes in the virus, and changes in population immunity, all the while addressing issues of global health equity.

Public health preparedness and response synergies between institutional authorities and the community: a qualitative case study of emerging tick-borne diseases in Spain and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Communities affected by infectious disease outbreaks are increasingly recognised as partners with a significant role to play during public health emergencies. This paper reports on a qualitative case study of the interactions between affected communities and public health institutions prior to, during, and after two emerging tick-borne disease events in 2016: Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever in Spain, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis in the Netherlands. The aim of the paper is to identify pre-existing and emergent synergies between communities and authorities, and to highlight areas where synergies could be facilitated and enhanced in future outbreaks. METHODS: Documentary material provided background for a set of semi-structured interviews with experts working in both health and relevant non-health official institutions (13 and 21 individuals respectively in Spain and the Netherlands), and focus group discussions with representatives of affected communities (15 and 10 individuals respectively). Data from all sources were combined and analysed thematically, initially independently for each country and then for both countries together. RESULTS: Strong synergies were identified in tick surveillance activities in both countries, and the value of pre-existing networks of interest groups for preparedness and response activities was recognised. However, authorities also noted that there were hard-to-reach and potentially vulnerable groups, such as hikers, foreign tourists, and volunteers working in green areas. While the general population received preventive information about the two events, risk communication or other community engagement efforts were not seen as necessary specifically for these sub-groups. Post-event evaluations of community engagement activities during the two events were limited, so lessons learned were not well documented. CONCLUSIONS: A set of good practices emerged from this study, that could be applied in these and other settings. They included the potential value of conducting stakeholder analyses of community actors with a stake in tick-borne or other zoonotic diseases; of utilising pre-existing stakeholder networks for information dissemination; and of monitoring community perceptions of any public health incident, including through social media. Efforts in the two countries to build on the community engagement activities that are already in place could contribute to better preparedness planning and more efficient and timely responses in future outbreaks.