↓ Skip to main content

Preparedness and response against diseases with epidemic potential in the European Union: a qualitative case study of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and poliomyelitis in five member states

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preparedness and response against diseases with epidemic potential in the European Union: a qualitative case study of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and poliomyelitis in five member states
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3326-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kinsman, John Angrén, Fredrik Elgh, Maria Furberg, Paola A. Mosquera, Laura Otero-García, René Snacken, Tarik Derrough, Paloma Carrillo Santisteve, Massimo Ciotti, Svetla Tsolova

Abstract

EU Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border health threats provides a legal basis for collaboration between EU Member States, and between international and European level institutions on preparedness, prevention, and mitigation in the event of a public health emergency. The Decision provides a context for the present study, which aims to identify good practices and lessons learned in preparedness and response to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (in UK, Greece, and Spain) and poliomyelitis (in Poland and Cyprus). Based on a documentary review, followed by five week-long country visits involving a total of 61 interviews and group discussions with experts from both the health and non-health sectors, this qualitative case study has investigated six issues related to preparedness and response to MERS and poliomyelitis: national plans and overall preparedness capacity; training and exercises; risk communication; linking policy and implementation; interoperability between the health and non-health sectors; and cross-border collaboration. Preparedness and response plans for MERS and poliomyelitis were in place in the participating countries, with a high level of technical expertise available to implement them. Nevertheless, formal evaluation of the responses to previous public health emergencies have sometimes been limited, so lessons learned may not be reflected in updated plans, thereby risking mistakes being repeated in future. The nature and extent of inter-sectoral collaboration varied according to the sectors involved, with those sectors that have traditionally had good collaboration (e.g. animal health and food safety), as well as those that have a financial incentive for controlling infectious diseases (e.g. agriculture, tourism, and air travel) seen as most likely to have integrated public health preparedness and response plans. Although the formal protocols for inter-sectoral collaboration were not always up to date, good personal relations were reported within the relevant professional networks, which could be brought into play in the event of a public health emergency. Cross-border collaboration was greatly facilitated if the neighbouring country was a fellow EU Member State. Infectious disease outbreaks remain as an ongoing threat. Efforts are required to ensure that core public health capacities for the full range of preparedness and response activities are sustained.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 51 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 59 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,111,433
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#810
of 7,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,769
of 329,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#39
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.