Abstract
Introduction Pandemics have plagued mankind since records began, and while non-communicable disease pandemics are more common in high-income nations, infectious disease pandemics continue to affect all countries worldwide. To mitigate impact, national pandemic preparedness and response policies remain crucial. And in response to emerging pathogens of pandemic potential, public health policies must be both dynamic and adaptive. Yet, this process of policy change and adaptation remains opaque. Accordingly, this rapid systematic review will synthesise and analyse evaluative policy literature to develop a roadmap of policy changes that have occurred after each pandemic event, throughout both the 20th and 21st Century, in order to better inform future policy development.
Methods and Analysis A rapid systematic review will be conducted to assimilate and synthesise both peer-reviewed articles and grey literature that document the then current pandemic preparedness policy, and the subsequent changes to that policy, across high-, middle- and low-income countries. The rapid review will follow the PRISMA guidelines, and the literature search will be performed across five relevant databases, as well as various government websites to scan for grey literature. Articles will be screen against pre-agreed inclusion/ exclusion criteria, and data will be extracted using a pre-defined charting table.
Ethics and Dissemination All data rely on secondary, publicly available data sources; therefore no ethical clearance is required. Upon completion, the results of this study will be disseminated via the Imperial College London Community and published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal.
Strengths and Limitations of this Study
This systematic review protocol is the first to focus on a longitudinal analysis of pandemic preparedness policy development across low, middle and high income country settings
This protocol and subsequent review benefit from increased transparency, a systematised strategy (PRISMA), and a reduction in the risk of bias, through publication in an open access journal
This review will also capture grey literature - studies published outside peer-reviewed journals
This review protocol and methodology is not as robust as systematic reviews, therefore will lack some of the robustness often associated will classical systematic reviews
Registration Number Open Science Framework: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VKA39
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding: This rapid systematic review received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data rely on secondary, publicly available data sources; therefore no ethical clearance is required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Availability of data and materials: This protocol has been registered at the following: Open Science Framework: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/VKA39. All data are available within the manuscript.
