‘Following the science’: the role of an independent advisory structure in the COVID-19 pandemic response and beyond

Andrew Gray, Jacqui Miot, Mathildah Mokgatle, Helen Rees
{"title":"‘Following the science’: the role of an independent advisory structure in the COVID-19 pandemic response and beyond","authors":"Andrew Gray, Jacqui Miot, Mathildah Mokgatle, Helen Rees","doi":"10.61473/001c.74968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background As the COVID-19 pandemic spread in 2020, many governments across the globe put structures in place to access rapid independent scientific evidence. The South African Minister of Health established an advisory committee in March 2020 to provide high-level strategic advice. This technical guidance, developed as topic-specific ‘advisories’, was expected to be context-specific and based on the best available evidence, locally and internationally. The authors developing the advisories could draw on systems-wide, multidisciplinary experience. Approach This chapter provides a reflective experience of the process of preparing advisories, the development of rapid evidence syntheses and their use in decision-making, the outputs and the lessons learned from that process, and the structural and operational changes over the course of the pandemic. As South Africa has moved out of the acute phase of the pandemic, the lessons learned must be embraced and best practices adopted to inform future pandemic preparedness. Advisories needed to use the best available evidence rather than wait for the best possible evidence. Some advisories were therefore revised multiple times, as new evidence emerged. Advisories were submitted to the Minister of Health for consideration prior to public release. However, in some cases, delays in such release led to confusion as to the scientific basis of policy decisions. The confidentiality of the committee debates also needed to be balanced against the need for engagement with the public. In order to promote accountability and build public trust, from March 2022 all advisories were published on a dedicated website within seven days of receipt by the Minister. The public were thus informed of the scientific basis of the advice, providing important context for subsequent executive decisions. Consistent feedback to the committee from decision-makers was also important, as their advice was only one of many inputs considered by a complex array of government bodies, across different departments. Conclusions The world faces a significant risk of further pandemics and other public health emergencies and is engaged in high-level negotiations on strengthening global capacity to respond. Whether that involves a global pandemic accord, strengthened International Health Regulations, or a strengthened global approach to medical countermeasures, rapid, credible, independent and country-specific scientific advice will remain essential. The lessons learned during COVID-19 should not be lost. Submitted on behalf of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":21814,"journal":{"name":"South African Health Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61473/001c.74968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background As the COVID-19 pandemic spread in 2020, many governments across the globe put structures in place to access rapid independent scientific evidence. The South African Minister of Health established an advisory committee in March 2020 to provide high-level strategic advice. This technical guidance, developed as topic-specific ‘advisories’, was expected to be context-specific and based on the best available evidence, locally and internationally. The authors developing the advisories could draw on systems-wide, multidisciplinary experience. Approach This chapter provides a reflective experience of the process of preparing advisories, the development of rapid evidence syntheses and their use in decision-making, the outputs and the lessons learned from that process, and the structural and operational changes over the course of the pandemic. As South Africa has moved out of the acute phase of the pandemic, the lessons learned must be embraced and best practices adopted to inform future pandemic preparedness. Advisories needed to use the best available evidence rather than wait for the best possible evidence. Some advisories were therefore revised multiple times, as new evidence emerged. Advisories were submitted to the Minister of Health for consideration prior to public release. However, in some cases, delays in such release led to confusion as to the scientific basis of policy decisions. The confidentiality of the committee debates also needed to be balanced against the need for engagement with the public. In order to promote accountability and build public trust, from March 2022 all advisories were published on a dedicated website within seven days of receipt by the Minister. The public were thus informed of the scientific basis of the advice, providing important context for subsequent executive decisions. Consistent feedback to the committee from decision-makers was also important, as their advice was only one of many inputs considered by a complex array of government bodies, across different departments. Conclusions The world faces a significant risk of further pandemics and other public health emergencies and is engaged in high-level negotiations on strengthening global capacity to respond. Whether that involves a global pandemic accord, strengthened International Health Regulations, or a strengthened global approach to medical countermeasures, rapid, credible, independent and country-specific scientific advice will remain essential. The lessons learned during COVID-19 should not be lost. Submitted on behalf of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“遵循科学”:独立咨询机构在COVID-19大流行应对及其后的作用
随着2019冠状病毒病大流行在2020年蔓延,全球许多政府都建立了快速获取独立科学证据的结构。南非卫生部长于2020年3月设立了一个咨询委员会,以提供高级别战略咨询。这项技术指导是作为具体专题的“咨询意见”制定的,预计将根据具体情况,并以当地和国际上现有的最佳证据为基础。编写咨询意见的作者可以利用全系统的多学科经验。方法本章提供了关于编制咨询意见过程、快速综合证据的发展及其在决策中的应用、该过程的产出和吸取的教训以及大流行期间结构和业务变化的反思经验。随着南非走出大流行病的急性阶段,必须吸取经验教训,采用最佳做法,为今后的大流行病防范提供信息。咨询需要使用现有的最佳证据,而不是等待可能的最佳证据。因此,随着新证据的出现,一些咨询报告被多次修订。咨询意见已提交卫生部长审议,然后再向公众发布。但是,在某些情况下,这种公布的延迟导致了对政策决定的科学依据的混淆。委员会辩论的保密性也需要与公众参与的需要相平衡。为了促进问责制和建立公众信任,从2022年3月起,部长收到所有建议后七天内都会在一个专门的网站上发布。公众因此了解了咨询意见的科学依据,为后来的行政决定提供了重要的背景。决策者对委员会的一致反馈也很重要,因为他们的建议只是不同部门的一系列复杂的政府机构所考虑的众多投入之一。世界面临进一步发生大流行病和其他突发公共卫生事件的重大风险,目前正在就加强全球应对能力进行高级别谈判。无论这是否涉及全球大流行病协议、加强《国际卫生条例》,还是加强全球医疗对策方法,快速、可信、独立和针对具体国家的科学咨询仍然至关重要。在2019冠状病毒病期间吸取的经验教训不应丢失。代表2019冠状病毒病部长级咨询委员会提交。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health and related indicators 2022 Health committee participation in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic: a shifting picture Gender differences in mental health outcomes during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in South Africa The ‘just transition’ and health in South Africa ‘Following the science’: the role of an independent advisory structure in the COVID-19 pandemic response and beyond
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1