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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |