tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Glob Health
. 2025 Mar 14;91(1):15.
doi: 10.5334/aogh.4625. eCollection 2025. The Global Health Security Index and Its Role in Shaping National COVID‑19 Response Capacities: A Scoping Review
Danik Iga Prasiska[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kennedy Mensah Osei[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Durga Datta Chapagain[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vasuki Rajaguru[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Tae Hyun Kim[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Sun Joo Kang[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sang Gyu Lee[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Suk-Yong Jang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Whiejong Han[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Introduction: Following the introduction of the Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic emerged as an unprecedented global health crisis, underscoring the need for robust health security frameworks and preparedness measures. This study conducts a scoping review to analyze the existing literature on the GHSI and assess national COVID‑19 responses across different countries. Method: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted for articles published from 2020 to 2024. Search terms included "Global Health Security Index" and terms related to COVID‑19. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), adjusted for cross‑sectional studies, was used for quality assessment. Results: A total of 3,243 studies were identified, of which 20 were finalized for data synthesis. Specific COVID‑19 parameters were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of each country's pandemic response capacity. Among the selected studies, 17 (85%) had a low risk of bias, while 3 (15%) had a medium risk. Countries' response capacities were categorized into five key parameters: detection, mortality, transmission, fatality, and recovery. Findings revealed significant discrepancies between GHSI scores and actual national responses, with some high‑scoring countries struggling to control the pandemic. This raises concerns about the GHSI's predictive reliability. Conclusion: The study highlights that the GHSI does not fully capture a country's capacity to respond effectively to COVID‑19. However, it remains a valuable tool for identifying gaps in pandemic preparedness. To enhance its relevance, the index should integrate a wider range of factors, including political leadership, governance, public health infrastructure, and socio‑cultural elements, which are crucial in managing public health emergencies.
Keywords: COVID‑19; Global Health; Index; Response; Security.
. 2025 Mar 14;91(1):15.
doi: 10.5334/aogh.4625. eCollection 2025. The Global Health Security Index and Its Role in Shaping National COVID‑19 Response Capacities: A Scoping Review
Danik Iga Prasiska[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kennedy Mensah Osei[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Durga Datta Chapagain[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vasuki Rajaguru[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Tae Hyun Kim[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Sun Joo Kang[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sang Gyu Lee[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Suk-Yong Jang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Whiejong Han[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 40092964
- PMCID: PMC11908420
- DOI: 10.5334/aogh.4625
Introduction: Following the introduction of the Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic emerged as an unprecedented global health crisis, underscoring the need for robust health security frameworks and preparedness measures. This study conducts a scoping review to analyze the existing literature on the GHSI and assess national COVID‑19 responses across different countries. Method: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted for articles published from 2020 to 2024. Search terms included "Global Health Security Index" and terms related to COVID‑19. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‑ScR) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), adjusted for cross‑sectional studies, was used for quality assessment. Results: A total of 3,243 studies were identified, of which 20 were finalized for data synthesis. Specific COVID‑19 parameters were analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of each country's pandemic response capacity. Among the selected studies, 17 (85%) had a low risk of bias, while 3 (15%) had a medium risk. Countries' response capacities were categorized into five key parameters: detection, mortality, transmission, fatality, and recovery. Findings revealed significant discrepancies between GHSI scores and actual national responses, with some high‑scoring countries struggling to control the pandemic. This raises concerns about the GHSI's predictive reliability. Conclusion: The study highlights that the GHSI does not fully capture a country's capacity to respond effectively to COVID‑19. However, it remains a valuable tool for identifying gaps in pandemic preparedness. To enhance its relevance, the index should integrate a wider range of factors, including political leadership, governance, public health infrastructure, and socio‑cultural elements, which are crucial in managing public health emergencies.
Keywords: COVID‑19; Global Health; Index; Response; Security.