Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them.

Methods

Senior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies.

Findings

Our analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice.

Interpretation

Comprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be “siloed” into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge “transversally” across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.

Related collections

Most cited references 39

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Social Determinants of Health

Michael Gideon Marmot, Richard P. Wilkinson (2005)

0 comments Cited 126 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A critical review of behavioral issues related to malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa: what contributions have social scientists made?

H Williams, Caroline O H Jones (2004)

In 1996, Social Science & Medicine published a review of treatment seeking for malaria (McCombie, 1996). Since that time, a significant amount of socio-behavioral research on the home management of malaria has been undertaken. In addition, recent initiatives such as Roll Back Malaria have emphasized the importance of social science inputs to malaria research and control. However, there has been a growing feeling that the potential contributions that social science could and should be making to malaria research and control have yet to be fully realized. To address these issues, this paper critically reviews and synthesizes the literature (published, unpublished and technical reports) pertaining to the home management of illness episodes of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa from 1996 to the end of 2000, and draws conclusions about the use of social science in malaria research and control. The results suggest that while we have amassed increasing quantities of descriptive data on treatment seeking behavior, we still have little understanding of the rationale of drug use from the patient perspective and, perhaps more importantly, barely any information on the rationale of provider behaviors. However, the results underline the dynamic and iterative nature of treatment seeking with multiple sources of care frequently being employed during a single illness episode; and highlight the importance in decision making of gender, socio-economic and cultural position of individuals within households and communities. Furthermore, the impact of political, structural and environmental factors on treatment seeking behaviors is starting to be recognised. Programs to address these issues may be beyond single sector (malaria control programme) interventions, but social science practice in malaria control needs to reflect a realistic appraisal of the complexities that govern human behavior and include critical appraisal and proposals for practical action. Major concerns arising from the review were the lack of evidence of 'social scientist' involvement (particularly few from endemic countries) in much of the published research; and concerns with methodological rigor. To increase the effective use of social science, we should focus on a new orientation for field research (including increased methodological rigor), address the gaps in research knowledge, strengthen the relationship between research, policy and practice; and concentrate on capacity strengthening and advocacy. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Ltd.

0 comments Cited 115 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A new twenty-first century science for effective epidemic response

Juliet Bedford, Jeremy Farrar, Chikwe Ihekweazu … (2019)

With rapidly changing ecology, urbanization, climate change, increased travel and fragile public health systems, epidemics will become more frequent, more complex and harder to prevent and contain. Here we argue that our concept of epidemics must evolve from crisis response during discrete outbreaks to an integrated cycle of preparation, response and recovery. This is an opportunity to combine knowledge and skills from all over the world—especially at-risk and affected communities. Many disciplines need to be integrated, including not only epidemiology but also social sciences, research and development, diplomacy, logistics and crisis management. This requires a new approach to training tomorrow’s leaders in epidemic prevention and response.