Display options
Share it on

BMC Public Health. 2021 Jul 12;21(1):1378. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11433-0.

An innovative and integrated model for global outbreak response and research - a case study of the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST).

BMC public health

Philomena Raftery, Mazeda Hossain, Jennifer Palmer

Affiliations

  1. Department of Global Health & Development and Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK. [email protected].
  2. Department of Global Health & Development and Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK.
  3. Centre for Women, Peace & Security, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, UK.

PMID: 34247621 PMCID: PMC8273030 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11433-0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable institutional experimentation at national and international levels in response to calls for global health security reform, there is little research on organisational models that address outbreak preparedness and response. Created in the aftermath of the 2013-16 West African Ebola epidemic, the United Kingdom's Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST) was designed to address critical gaps in outbreak response illuminated during the epidemic, while leveraging existing UK institutional strengths. The partnership between the government agency, Public Health England, and an academic consortium, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, seeks to integrate outbreak response, operational research and capacity building. We explored the design, establishment and early experiences of the UK-PHRST as one of the first bodies of its kind globally, paying particular attention to governance decisions which enabled them to address their complex mission.

METHODS: We conducted a qualitative case study using 19 in-depth interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the team's design and implementation, review of organisational documents, and observations of meetings to analyse the UK-PHRST's creation, establishment and initial 2 years of operations.

RESULTS: According to key informants, adopting a triple mandate (response, research and capacity building) established the team as novel in the global epidemic response architecture. Key governance decisions recognised as vital to the model included: structuring the team as a government-academic collaboration which leveraged long-term and complementary UK investments in public health and the higher education sector; adopting a more complex, dual reporting and funding structure to maintain an ethos of institutional balance between lead organisations; supporting a multidisciplinary team of experts to respond early in outbreaks for optimal impact; prioritising and funding epidemic research to influence response policy and practice; and ensuring the team's activities reinforced the existing global health architecture.

CONCLUSION: The UK-PHRST aims to enhance global outbreak response using an innovative and integrated model that capitalises on institutional strengths of the partnership. Insights suggest that despite adding complexity, integrating operational research through the government-academic collaboration contributed significant advantages. This promising model could be adopted and adapted by countries seeking to build similar outbreak response and research capacities.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: Emergencies; Epidemics; Global Health governance; Global Health security; Innovation; Operational research; Outbreak preparedness and response; Partnerships

References

  1. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;23(7):1057-1062 - PubMed
  2. BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Nov 24;16(1):699 - PubMed
  3. Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Aug;3(8):e423 - PubMed
  4. Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389(10068):505-518 - PubMed
  5. Am J Public Health. 2016 Nov;106(11):1904-1906 - PubMed
  6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Jun;19(6):864-9 - PubMed
  7. Br Med Bull. 2019 Mar 1;129(1):79-89 - PubMed
  8. Health Policy Plan. 2019 Feb 1;34(1):47-54 - PubMed
  9. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26;372(1721): - PubMed
  10. Clin Med (Lond). 2017 Jul;17(4):332-337 - PubMed
  11. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020 Apr;14(2):256-264 - PubMed
  12. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018 Aug;31(4):316-324 - PubMed
  13. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 09;9(4):e0003706 - PubMed
  14. PLoS Med. 2016 May 19;13(5):e1002042 - PubMed
  15. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 27;379(13):1198-1201 - PubMed
  17. Lancet. 2015 Nov 28;386(10009):2204-21 - PubMed
  18. Health Secur. 2020 Jan;18(S1):S8-S13 - PubMed
  19. BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jan 20;3(Suppl 1):e000656 - PubMed
  20. Lancet. 2018 Oct 20;392(10156):1482-1486 - PubMed
  21. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1448-1456 - PubMed
  22. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2017;411:63-92 - PubMed
  23. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 May;12(5):415-21 - PubMed
  24. J R Army Med Corps. 2016 Jun;162(3):156-62 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support