Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security.
Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12992-020-00652-6
复制
发表时间：
2020-12-30
影响因子：
10.8
通讯作者：
Stellmach D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bardosh KL;de Vries DH;Abramowitz S;Thorlie A;Cremers L;Kinsman J;Stellmach D
将社会科学纳入流行病防范和应对的重要性已成为传染病政策和实践辩论的一个共同特征。然而迄今为止，这种整合仍然不充分、分散且资金不足，影响范围有限且初始投资较小。根据在 COVID-19 大流行之前收集的数据，我们分析了阻碍流行病中社会科学全面整合的各种知识、基础设施和资金缺口，并提出了解决这些问题的战略框架。具有突发公共卫生事件专业知识的高级社会科学家促进了专家审议，并进行了 75 次关键知情者访谈、与来自非洲、亚洲和欧洲的 20 名社会科学家专家进行的磋商、2 个焦点小组以及对 128 篇已确定的高优先级同行评审文章的文献综述。我们还分析了 Ebola 100 项目的 56 份采访，这些采访是在西非埃博拉疫情爆发后收集的。对差距和建议进行了分析。在两组优先排序练习中，这些内容根据不同主题进行归纳分类。该项目于 2019 年 2 月至 5 月期间进行。报告的结果用于为突发卫生事件社会科学能力的全球投资战略优先顺序提供信息。我们的分析整合了 600 个差距和 220 项建议的初始列表中的 12 项知识和基础设施差距和 38 项建议。在制定框架时，我们将其分为三个领域：1）提高核心社会科学应对能力的建议，包括对以下方面的投资：应对机构内的人力资源；在实地和全球层面建立社会科学数据分析能力；知识运作机制；以及一套快速部署的基础设施； 2) 加强应用和基础社会科学的建议，包括需要：更好地界定社会科学议程和核心能力；支持创新的跨学科科学；在开发现场工具和建立证据基础方面进行协调一致的投资；并制定行为准则； 3) 关于支持性社会科学生态系统的建议，包括：机构发展的重要基础投资；培训和能力建设；与相关学科一起开展提高认识活动；最后，对实践社区的支持。将社会科学全面纳入流行病防范和应对架构中，需要与流行病学和病毒学等相关学科同等的多方面投资。核心能力和能力建设应在多个层面进行，以国家主导的能力建设为基础。社会科学不应该是一个平行的系统，也不应该“孤立”到风险沟通和社区参与中。相反，它应该整合到现有的系统和网络中，并在所有准备和响应部门和支柱中“横向”部署跨学科知识。未来的工作应该更新这个框架，以考虑到 COVID-19 大流行对机构格局的影响。
The importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them. Senior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies. Our analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice. Comprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be “siloed” into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge “transversally” across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
8.1
作者：
Carter SE;Gobat N;Pfaffmann Zambruni J;Bedford J;van Kleef E;Jombart T;Mossoko M;Bulemfu Nkakirande D;Navarro Colorado C;Ahuka-Mundeke S
通讯作者：
Ahuka-Mundeke S
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
López A;Cáceres VM
通讯作者：
Cáceres VM
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Farmer A;Breen G;Brewster S;Craddock N;Gill M;Korszun A;Maier W;Middleton L;Mors O;Owen M;Perry J;Preisig M;Rietschel M;Reich T;Jones L;Jones I;McGuffin P
通讯作者：
McGuffin P
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2016.0371
发表时间：
2017-05-26
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Cori, Anne;Donnelly, Christl A.;Blake, Isobel M.
通讯作者：
Blake, Isobel M.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Farmer, P
通讯作者：
Farmer, P