One lesson of COVID-19: Conduct more health policy trials.
One lesson of COVID-19: Conduct more health policy trials.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2119887119
复制
发表时间：
2022-06-14
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
公共卫生专家于2019年10月发布的全球健康安全指数（1）根据各国应对传染病疫情的准备程度对各国进行了评级。美国排名第一，新西兰排在第35位。然而，当2019年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行在几个月后爆发时，这些排名被证明是不可靠的（2）：美国迄今为止报告的死亡人数最多，而新西兰的情况要好得多。这些结果指出了一个根本性的挑战，而不是某个评估方法的失败。它们可能表明，尽管我们对药物进行了仔细的测试，但研究人员在卫生政策的有效性方面缺乏坚实的证据基础--针对流行病，以及更广泛的流行病。随着COVID-19蔓延到世界各地，专家和其他人对如何应对有着强烈的意见，但这些充其量只是有根据的猜测。国家、省、州、地区、区、镇等各级政府在广泛的政策问题上都积极行动，但也存在分歧（见表1）。有些锁得很短，有些锁得很长，还有一些根本不锁。旅行限制、学校关闭、稀缺的COVID-19医疗资源（从检测到重症监护再到疫苗）的分配--每个司法管辖区的制度都不一样，几乎没有一致的理由，然后放松或逆转，往往和以前一样不连贯
The Global Health Security Index, published in October 2019 by public health experts (1), rated nations by their readiness to respond to infectious disease outbreaks. The United States ranked first, whereas New Zealand trailed in 35th place. Yet when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic struck months later, these rankings turned out to be unreliable (2): The United States has to date reported the most deaths, whereas New Zealand fares considerably better. These results point to a fundamental challenge more than to the failings of a particular assessment approach. They may demonstrate that, for all our careful testing of pharmaceuticals, researchers lack a solid evidence base regarding the effectiveness of health policies—against pandemics, and more widely.Experts and others had strong opinions on how to respond as COVID-19 spread to all corners of the world, but these were educated guesses at best. Authorities at every level—countries, provinces, states, regions, districts, and towns—acted vigorously, but variably (3), on a wide range of policy questions (see Table 1). Some locked down briefly, some, for long periods, and others, not at all. Travel restrictions, school closures, the allocation of scarce COVID-19 medical resources ranging from tests to intensive care to vaccines—each were instituted differently from one jurisdiction to another with little consistent reason, and then relaxed or reversed, often as incoherently as they had been
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj-2021-067507
发表时间：
2021-11-28
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Haldane V;Jung AS;Neill R;Singh S;Wu S;Jamieson M;Verma M;Tan M;De Foo C;Abdalla SM;Shrestha P;Chua AQ;Nordström A;Legido-Quigley H
通讯作者：
Legido-Quigley H
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Kenworthy, Nora;Koon, Adam D.;Mendenhall, Emily
通讯作者：
Mendenhall, Emily
DOI：
10.1056/nejmsa1212321
发表时间：
2013-05-02
期刊：
The New England journal of medicine
影响因子：
--
作者：
Baicker K;Taubman SL;Allen HL;Bernstein M;Gruber JH;Newhouse JP;Schneider EC;Wright BJ;Zaslavsky AM;Finkelstein AN;Oregon Health Study Group
通讯作者：
Oregon Health Study Group
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Faden, Ruth R.;Kass, Nancy E.;Beauchamp, Tom L.
通讯作者：
Beauchamp, Tom L.
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Lindblad, Sverker;Warvik, Gun-Britt;Wyszynska Johansson, Martina
通讯作者：
Wyszynska Johansson, Martina