Search

IntroductionRecent global health events underscore the critical need to strengthen public health capacity worldwide, with epidemiologists playing a key role in disease management at the population level. The international community has recognized the importance of enhancing the public health workforce, including epidemiology capacity. This scoping review explores how Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) trainees and graduates have been engaged by their respective health ministries to address public health threats.MethodsA literature search was conducted in electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and Google) using specific keywords such as “Epidemiologist,” “Field Epidemiologist,” and “Health workforce.” The search focused on English-language articles published between January 2012 and December 2021. Relevant articles were analyzed descriptively, and data on FETP engagement, impact within health ministries, and career paths were extracted.ResultsThe search yielded 30 studies from various regions globally. FETP graduates and trainees were actively engaged in national health priorities, including COVID-19 responses such as surveillance, rapid response teams, and case investigations. FETPs have significantly contributed by developing surveillance systems, investigating outbreaks, and responding to natural disasters. Many FETP graduates have assumed leadership roles in Ministries of Health, NGOs, and international organizations.ConclusionFETP graduates are integral to priority public health programs and have significantly strengthened public health systems worldwide. Their contributions highlight the importance of investing in the public health workforce, including field epidemiology training, to effectively detect and respond to emerging outbreaks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term impact of FETP graduates on public health.

Abstract In January 2020, SARS-CoV-2 virus was identified as a cause of an outbreak in China. The disease quickly spread worldwide, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic in March 2020. From the first notifications of spread of the disease, the WHO’s Emergency Programme implemented a global COVID-19 surveillance system in coordination with all WHO regional offices. The system aimed to monitor the spread of the epidemic over countries and across population groups, severity of the disease and risk factors, and the impact of control measures. COVID-19 surveillance data reported to WHO is a combination of case-based data and weekly aggregated data, focusing on a minimum global dataset for cases and deaths including disaggregation by age, sex, occupation as a Health Care Worker, as well as number of cases tested, and number of cases newly admitted for hospitalization. These disaggregations aim to monitor inequities in COVID-19 distribution and risk factors among population groups. SARS-CoV-2 epidemic waves continue to sweep the world; as of March 2022, over 445 million cases and 6 million deaths have been reported worldwide. Of these, over 327 million cases (74%) have been reported in the WHO surveillance database, of which 255 million cases (57%) are disaggregated by age and sex. A public dashboard has been made available to visualize trends, age distributions, sex ratios, along with testing and hospitalization rates. It includes a feature to download the underlying dataset. This paper will describe the data flows, database, and frontend public dashboard, as well as the challenges experienced in data acquisition, curation and compilation and the lessons learnt in overcoming these. Two years after the pandemic was declared, COVID-19 continues to spread and is still considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). While WHO regional and country offices have demonstrated tremendous adaptability and commitment to process COVID-19 surveillance data, lessons learnt from this major event will serve to enhance capacity and preparedness at every level, as well as institutional empowerment that may lead to greater sharing of public health evidence during a PHEIC, with a focus on equity.

Abstract Background Timely but accurate data collection is needed during health emergencies to inform public health responses. Often, an abundance of data is collected but not used. When outbreaks and other health events occur in remote and complex settings, operatives on the ground are often required to cover multiple tasks whilst working with limited resources. Tools that facilitate the collection of essential data during the early investigations of a potential public health event can support effective public health decision-making. We proposed to define the minimum set of quantitative information to collect whilst using electronic device or not. Here we present the process used to select the minimum information required to describe an outbreak of any cause during its initial stages and occurring in remote settings. Methods A working group of epidemiologists took part in two rounds of a Delphi process to categorise the variables to be included in an initial outbreak investigation form. This took place between January–June 2019 using an online survey. Results At a threshold of 75 %, consensus was reached for nineteen (23.2%) variables which were all classified as ‘essential’. This increased to twenty-six (31.7%) variables when the threshold was reduced to 60% with all but one variable classified as ‘essential’. Twenty-five of these variables were included in the ‘Time zero initial case investigation’ ‘(T0)’ form which was shared with the members of the Rapid Response Team Knowledge Network for field testing and feedback. The form has been readily available online by WHO since September 2019. Conclusion This is the first known Delphi process used to determine the minimum variables needed for an outbreak investigation. The subsequent development of the T0 form should help to improve the efficiency and standardisation of data collection during emergencies and ultimately the quality of the data collected during field investigation.

Introduction: In 2016–18, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe suffered a necrotic skin infection epidemic. Methods: A surveillance system was established after increased hospitalisations for this infection. Microbiology results were available for samples analysed in December 2016 and March 2017 using whole genome sequencing and metagenomics. Negative binomial regression was used to study the association of weather conditions with monthly case counts in a time-series analysis. Results: From October 2016 to October 2018, the epidemic cumulative attack rate was 1.5%. The first peak lasted 5 months, accounting for one-third of total cases. We could not conclusively identify the aetiological agent(s) due to the country's lack of microbiology capacity. Increased relative humidity was associated with increased monthly cases (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.09), and higher precipitation in the previous month with a higher number of cases in the following month (months with 0–49 mm rainfall compared with months with 50–149 mm and ≥150 mm: IRR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.13–1.78 and 1.50, 95% CI 1.12–1.99, respectively). Discussion: This epidemic was favoured by increased relative humidity and precipitation, potentially contributing to community-based transmission of ubiquitous bacterial strains superinfecting skin wounds. Funding: World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, Ministry of Health

The 2000 Hajj (March 15–18) was followed by an outbreak of Neisseria meningitidis W135 2a: P1.2,5 in Europe. From March 18 to July 31, 2000, some 90 cases of meningococcal infection were reported from nine countries, mostly the United Kingdom (UK) and France; 14 cases were fatal. Although most early cases were in pilgrims, the outbreak spread to their contacts and then to those with no known pilgrim contact. In France and the UK, the outbreak case-fatality rate was compared with the rate reported from national surveillance. The risk of dying during this outbreak was higher in France and the UK, although the difference was not statistically significant. Prophylaxis for all pilgrims and their household contacts was offered in France; in the UK and other European countries, prophylaxis was recommended only for close contacts. No difference in transmission rates following intervention was detected between France and the UK.