Decision-making under epistemic, strategic and institutional uncertainty during COVID-19: findings from a six-country empirical study.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018124
Sumegha Asthana, Sanjana Mukherjee, Alexandra L Phelan, Ibrahim B Gobir, J J Woo, Clare Wenham, Mohammad Mushtuq Husain, Tahmina Shirin, Nevashan Govender, Mohannad Al Nsour, Winifred Ukponu, Adachioma Chinonso Ihueze, Roujia Lin, Sumit Asthana, Renee Vongai Mutare, Claire J Standley
{"title":"Decision-making under epistemic, strategic and institutional uncertainty during COVID-19: findings from a six-country empirical study.","authors":"Sumegha Asthana, Sanjana Mukherjee, Alexandra L Phelan, Ibrahim B Gobir, J J Woo, Clare Wenham, Mohammad Mushtuq Husain, Tahmina Shirin, Nevashan Govender, Mohannad Al Nsour, Winifred Ukponu, Adachioma Chinonso Ihueze, Roujia Lin, Sumit Asthana, Renee Vongai Mutare, Claire J Standley","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uncertainty is defined as limited knowledge or lack of predictability about past, present or future events. The COVID-19 pandemic management was significantly impacted by uncertainty, as the gaps between existing information and the necessary knowledge hindered decision-making. Current uncertainty literature primarily focuses on natural disasters, leaving a gap in understanding decision-making under uncertainty in times of public health emergencies. Analysing strategies for making decisions under uncertainty during the pandemic is crucial for future pandemic preparedness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a comparative research design, we study the strategies governments used to make decisions under uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data through desk reviews, stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders from government, academia and civil society from six purposefully selected countries: Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Bangladesh, Jordan and the UK.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regardless of political, geographic and economic context, all six countries adopted common strategies to make decisions under three types of uncertainties. Decision-making under epistemic uncertainty involved seeking expert advice and collecting evidence from other countries and international organisations. Decision-making under strategic uncertainty involved coordination, collaboration and communication. Decision-making under institutional uncertainty involved using or adapting pre-existing experiences, structures and relationships and establishing new institutions and processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We contribute to the theory and practice of public health crisis decision-making by presenting a unified national-level applied decision-making framework for events involving uncertainty. We provide practical guidance for approaches to enhance decision-making in future health crises that could also be used for other emergencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018124","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Uncertainty is defined as limited knowledge or lack of predictability about past, present or future events. The COVID-19 pandemic management was significantly impacted by uncertainty, as the gaps between existing information and the necessary knowledge hindered decision-making. Current uncertainty literature primarily focuses on natural disasters, leaving a gap in understanding decision-making under uncertainty in times of public health emergencies. Analysing strategies for making decisions under uncertainty during the pandemic is crucial for future pandemic preparedness.

Methods: Using a comparative research design, we study the strategies governments used to make decisions under uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data through desk reviews, stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders from government, academia and civil society from six purposefully selected countries: Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Bangladesh, Jordan and the UK.

Results: Regardless of political, geographic and economic context, all six countries adopted common strategies to make decisions under three types of uncertainties. Decision-making under epistemic uncertainty involved seeking expert advice and collecting evidence from other countries and international organisations. Decision-making under strategic uncertainty involved coordination, collaboration and communication. Decision-making under institutional uncertainty involved using or adapting pre-existing experiences, structures and relationships and establishing new institutions and processes.

Conclusions: We contribute to the theory and practice of public health crisis decision-making by presenting a unified national-level applied decision-making framework for events involving uncertainty. We provide practical guidance for approaches to enhance decision-making in future health crises that could also be used for other emergencies.

Abstract Image

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
2019冠状病毒病期间认知、战略和制度不确定性下的决策:来自六国实证研究的结果。
背景:不确定性被定义为对过去、现在或未来事件的有限知识或缺乏可预测性。不确定性严重影响了COVID-19大流行管理,因为现有信息与必要知识之间的差距阻碍了决策。目前的不确定性文献主要关注自然灾害,在理解突发公共卫生事件中不确定性下的决策方面存在空白。分析大流行期间在不确定情况下做出决策的战略,对未来的大流行防范至关重要。方法:采用比较研究设计,研究新冠肺炎大流行期间政府在不确定性下的决策策略。我们通过案头审查、利益相关者访谈和与来自尼日利亚、新加坡、南非、孟加拉国、约旦和英国六个有目的地选择的国家的政府、学术界和民间社会利益相关者的焦点小组讨论收集数据。结果:无论政治、地理和经济背景如何,所有六个国家在三种不确定性下都采用了共同的决策策略。认知不确定性下的决策包括寻求专家建议和从其他国家和国际组织收集证据。战略不确定性下的决策涉及协调、协作和沟通。体制不确定性下的决策涉及利用或调整已有的经验、结构和关系,以及建立新的体制和程序。结论:我们通过提出涉及不确定性事件的统一国家级应用决策框架,为公共卫生危机决策的理论和实践做出了贡献。我们为在今后的卫生危机中加强决策的方法提供实际指导,这些方法也可用于其他紧急情况。
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
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
Extreme rainfall and anaemia among children under five in 46 low- and middle-income countries. Bringing severe non-communicable disease care to district-level hospitals in Nepal: PEN-Plus experience and regional policy implications. Opportunities and challenges in integrating family planning and nutrition services in Tanzania: a mixed-methods study. Leveraging connections between family planning and nutrition to improve the health of women. Beyond parallel programmes: a roadmap for operational integration of family planning and nutrition in low- and middle-income countries.
×
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:604180095
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