Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar

To date more than 100 countries have carried out a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) as part of their Global Health Security programme. The JEE is a detailed effort to assess a country’s capacity to prevent, detect and respond to population health threats in 19 programmatic areas. To date no attempt h...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Richard Garfield, Maureen Bartee, Landry Ndriko Mayigane
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2019-11-01
Series:BMJ Global Health
Online Access:https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/6/e001655.full
id doaj-f0026d8e1c524162bec1740c8eccca44
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f0026d8e1c524162bec1740c8eccca442021-03-25T15:30:43ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Global Health2059-79082019-11-014610.1136/bmjgh-2019-001655Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and MadagascarRichard GarfieldMaureen BarteeLandry Ndriko MayiganeTo date more than 100 countries have carried out a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) as part of their Global Health Security programme. The JEE is a detailed effort to assess a country’s capacity to prevent, detect and respond to population health threats in 19 programmatic areas. To date no attempt has been made to determine the validity of these measures. We compare scores and commentary from the JEE in three countries to the strengths and weaknesses identified in the response to a subsequent large-scale outbreak in each of those countries. Relevant indicators were compared qualitatively, and scored as low, medium or in a high level of agreement between the JEE and the outbreak review in each of these three countries. Three reviewers independently reviewed each of the three countries. A high level of correspondence existed between score and text in the JEE and strengths and weaknesses identified in the review of an outbreak. In general, countries responded somewhat better than JEE scores indicated, but this appears to be due in part to JEE-related identification of weaknesses in that area. The improved response in large measure was due to more rapid requests for international assistance in these areas. It thus appears that even before systematic improvements are made in public health infrastructure that the JEE process may assist in improving outcomes in response to major outbreaks.https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/6/e001655.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Richard Garfield
Maureen Bartee
Landry Ndriko Mayigane
spellingShingle Richard Garfield
Maureen Bartee
Landry Ndriko Mayigane
Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
BMJ Global Health
author_facet Richard Garfield
Maureen Bartee
Landry Ndriko Mayigane
author_sort Richard Garfield
title Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
title_short Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
title_full Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
title_fullStr Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
title_full_unstemmed Validating Joint External Evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Madagascar
title_sort validating joint external evaluation reports with the quality of outbreak response in ethiopia, nigeria and madagascar
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Global Health
issn 2059-7908
publishDate 2019-11-01
description To date more than 100 countries have carried out a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) as part of their Global Health Security programme. The JEE is a detailed effort to assess a country’s capacity to prevent, detect and respond to population health threats in 19 programmatic areas. To date no attempt has been made to determine the validity of these measures. We compare scores and commentary from the JEE in three countries to the strengths and weaknesses identified in the response to a subsequent large-scale outbreak in each of those countries. Relevant indicators were compared qualitatively, and scored as low, medium or in a high level of agreement between the JEE and the outbreak review in each of these three countries. Three reviewers independently reviewed each of the three countries. A high level of correspondence existed between score and text in the JEE and strengths and weaknesses identified in the review of an outbreak. In general, countries responded somewhat better than JEE scores indicated, but this appears to be due in part to JEE-related identification of weaknesses in that area. The improved response in large measure was due to more rapid requests for international assistance in these areas. It thus appears that even before systematic improvements are made in public health infrastructure that the JEE process may assist in improving outcomes in response to major outbreaks.
url https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/6/e001655.full
work_keys_str_mv AT richardgarfield validatingjointexternalevaluationreportswiththequalityofoutbreakresponseinethiopianigeriaandmadagascar
AT maureenbartee validatingjointexternalevaluationreportswiththequalityofoutbreakresponseinethiopianigeriaandmadagascar
AT landryndrikomayigane validatingjointexternalevaluationreportswiththequalityofoutbreakresponseinethiopianigeriaandmadagascar
_version_ 1724203470969372672