Rapid Systematic Review Exploring Historical and Present Day National and International Governance during Pandemics

  1. Elizabeth Lowry
  2. Henock Taddese
  3. Leigh R. Bowman

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

Pandemics have plagued mankind since records began, and while non-communicable disease pandemics are more common in high-income nations, infectious disease pandemics continue to affect all countries worldwide. To mitigate impact, national pandemic preparedness and response policies remain crucial. And in response to emerging pathogens of pandemic potential, public health policies must be both dynamic and adaptive. Yet, this process of policy change and adaptation remains opaque. Accordingly, this rapid systematic review will synthesise and analyse evaluative policy literature to develop a roadmap of policy changes that have occurred after each pandemic event, throughout both the 20th and 21st Century, in order to better inform future policy development.

Methods and Analysis

A rapid systematic review will be conducted to assimilate and synthesise both peer-reviewed articles and grey literature that document the then current pandemic preparedness policy, and the subsequent changes to that policy, across high-, middle- and low-income countries. The rapid review will follow the PRISMA guidelines, and the literature search will be performed across five relevant databases, as well as various government websites to scan for grey literature. Articles will be screen against pre-agreed inclusion/ exclusion criteria, and data will be extracted using a pre-defined charting table.

Ethics and Dissemination

All data rely on secondary, publicly available data sources; therefore no ethical clearance is required. Upon completion, the results of this study will be disseminated via the Imperial College London Community and published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal.

Article Summary

Strengths and Limitations of this Study

  • This systematic review protocol is the first to focus on a longitudinal analysis of pandemic preparedness policy development across low, middle and high income country settings

  • This protocol and subsequent review benefit from increased transparency, a systematised strategy (PRISMA), and a reduction in the risk of bias, through publication in an open access journal

  • This review will also capture grey literature - studies published outside peer-reviewed journals

  • This review protocol and methodology is not as robust as systematic reviews, therefore will lack some of the robustness often associated will classical systematic reviews

Registration Number

Open Science Framework: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VKA39

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148239: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The following databases will be searched to identify appropriate peer-reviewed literature: Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, PMC and Medline.
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148239v1 on medRxiv