Gaps and Opportunities for Data Systems and Economics to Support Priority Setting for Climate-Sensitive Infectious Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Rapid Scoping Review ========================================================================================================================================================================= * Ellie A. Delight * Ariel A. Brunn * Francis Ruiz * Jessica Gerard * Jane Falconer * Yang Liu * Bubacarr Bah * Bernard Bett * Benjamin Uzochukwu * Oladeji K. Oloko * Esther Njuguna * Kris A. Murray ## Abstract Climate change alters risks associated with climate-sensitive infectious diseases (CSIDs) with pandemic potential. This poses additional threats to already vulnerable populations, further amplified by intersecting social factors, such as gender and socioeconomic status. Currently, critical evidence gaps and inadequate institutional and governance mechanisms impact on the ability for African States to prevent, detect and respond to CSIDs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of data systems and economics to support priority setting for CSID preparedness in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify existing knowledge and gaps relevant to economics and data systems. A literature search was performed across six bibliographic databases in November 2023. A list of 14 target pathogens, identified by the World Health Organization as Public Health Emergencies of International Concern or R&D Blueprint Pathogens, was adopted and compared to a database of CSIDs to determine relevant inclusion criteria. Extracted data were synthesised using bibliometric analysis, thematic topic categorisation, and narrative synthesis to identify research needs, evidence gaps, and opportunities for priority setting. We identified 68 relevant studies. While African author involvement has been increasing since 2010, few studies were led by senior authors from African institutions. Data system studies (n = 50) showed broad coverage across CSIDs and the WHO AFRO region but also a high degree of heterogeneity, indicating a lack of clearly defined standards for data systems related to pandemic preparedness. Economic studies (n = 18) primarily focused on COVID-19 and Ebola and mostly originated from South Africa. Both data system and economic studies identified limited data sharing across sectors and showed a notable absence of gender sensitivity analyses. These significant gaps highlight important opportunities to support priority setting and decision-making for pandemic preparedness, ultimately leading to more equitable health outcomes. ## Introduction Rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact the frequency and intensity of climate hazards (e.g., temperature, rainfall) and extremes (e.g., droughts, floods, and heatwaves), which can aggravate the transmission of climate-sensitive infectious diseases (CSIDs) (1). Additionally, changing climate patterns alter ecological niches where humans, animals and vectors are able to survive (2). In conjunction with changing land-use patterns, these altered ecological settings and climate hazards can impact pathogen exchange among previously isolated vectors, wildlife, livestock, and human populations (3, 4). This can expose immunologically naïve populations to CSIDs, leading to increased risk of CSID pandemics. Notably, all eight of the viral diseases declared as Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) (5) are climate-sensitive according to a recent review (1), including COVID-19 and Mpox. Additionally, eight of the nine pathogens prioritised by the WHO Research & Development (R&D) Blueprint list are classed as climate-sensitive (6). The R&D list helps to prioritise R&D resources towards pathogens that pose significant public health risk due to their epidemic potential or insufficient control measures. Vulnerability to CSIDs is further driven by marginalisation coupled with social determinants of health such as gender, socioeconomic status, race, and disability. The intersectional gendered risks of CSIDs were evident in the COVID-19 pandemic, where the case fatality rate was higher among men (7), but women faced greater socioeconomic impacts and increased risk of domestic violence as a result of lockdown restrictions (8, 9). Adopting an intersectional gender lens in CSID research can enable a more contextualised and thorough understanding of the aetiology of CSIDs, advocating for an equitable approach to CSID pandemic response tailored to men, women, boys, girls, and other gender identities (10). A growing body of evidence demonstrates the disproportionate impact of climate change across countries in sub-Saharan Africa, despite minimal contributions to GHG emissions (11–13). Some limited studies have evaluated the risk of CSIDs in sub-Saharan Africa; for instance, in low-income, rural communities in the Sahel region of West Africa, daily high temperatures (above 41.1 °C compared to 36.4°C median) and low rainfall (below 10mm compared to 14mm median) were associated with increased deaths from CSIDs (13). Additionally, climate hazards such as flooding can prevent access to healthcare services, which can cause diagnostic and treatment delays (14), impeding early detection of outbreaks and raising the risk of uncontrolled disease spread and pandemic emergence. The ability to prepare for the outsized risks of CSID pandemics in sub-Saharan Africa is limited by weak institutional collaborations or integrated governance mechanisms. This hinders data-driven decision-making and appropriate and judicious allocation of scarce resources. Successful policy response requires capacity on both sides of the research-policy nexus, including skilled researchers generating robust data and relevant economic evaluation, and presence of formalised systems or bodies to build confidence and public support for the deployment of public funds during a public health crisis. Interoperable data systems that provide near real-time information across human, animal, and environmental domains inform decision-making for the detection and prevention of CSIDs. Additionally, data systems can help to inform decision-making across later stages of pandemic preparedness; for example by helping to tailor control strategies to regional climate differences that would otherwise hamper response strategies (15). Priority setting is a process that can help manage complex decision-making and may be especially beneficial in pandemic response, particularly in low-resource settings where policy makers must balance emergency needs with regular health programs. Recent outbreaks, such as the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (16) and more recently with COVID-19 globally, illustrate the long-lasting economic and health consequences of pandemics. Understanding the cost-effectiveness of interventions and response can aid decision-makers in allocating scarce resources during pandemic response. This can incorporate economic evaluation (such as cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), cost-utility analyses (CUA), or cost-benefit analyses (CBA)), which are ideally institutionalised and include approaches such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) that consider a body of evidence and multi-stakeholder perspectives. Effective priority setting with respect to pandemic preparedness and CSIDs, or indeed in any situation where a resource allocation decision needs to be made, should be informed by evidence of both likely benefits and cost-effectiveness (17). In turn, such assessments of value depend on credible sources of information, even though assumptions and the need to make qualitative judgements are unavoidable. Priority setting is therefore facilitated by having fit-for-purpose (and cost-effective) data systems that capture contextualised information on epidemiology, vulnerable groups, resource use, and other relevant socio-economic characteristics. As such, data systems are key to informing CSID control strategies, and supporting the parameterisation of economic evaluations that help to consider the benefits of available strategies against the resources required to implement them. To identify existing knowledge and gaps relevant to data system and economic studies for priority setting of CSIDs with pandemic potential, we extended a conceptual framework across four stages of pandemic preparedness: Prevention (Stage 1): pre-epidemic preparedness; Detection (Stage 2): identify, investigate, evaluate risk; Response (Stage 3): outbreak response & containment; Evaluation (Stage 4): Post-epidemic evaluation (18) (Fig 1). ![Fig 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F1.medium.gif) [Fig 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F1) Fig 1. Pandemic Preparedness Framework for Climate Sensitive Infectious Disease in Africa. Adapted from: World Health Organization. (2014). Ebola and Marburg virus disease epidemics: Preparedness, alert, control, and evaluation. [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-HSE-PED-CED-2014.05](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-HSE-PED-CED-2014.05) ### Rationale Low- and middle-income countries contribute the least to anthropogenic climate change but are highly vulnerable to its impacts, with important implications for public health. It is crucial to identify evidence gaps, establish future research priorities, and strengthen stakeholder networks at the climate-health intersection to direct research funding and inform policies that enhance health outcomes and resilience of health systems for vulnerable populations. This necessitates multidisciplinary and comprehensive government approaches, leveraging more integrative disciplines such as One Health and Planetary Health, with an emphasis on intersectional gendered analysis to ensure representation of marginalised communities. By deepening our understanding of the climate-health nexus, we can develop more effective strategies for preventing, detecting, and responding to disease outbreaks. ### Objectives 1. To map key themes and entry points for future African-led research and to identify gaps in evidence for priority setting using economic evaluation and data systems for policy development; 2. To use bibliometric analysis to assess institutional stakeholder networks and to evaluate trends in research development on key themes and outputs included in the review; 3. To identify applications for a transdisciplinary and gender-intersectional approach for CSID preparedness and response. ### Research questions 1. What are the key themes, in terms of economic evaluation (including cost-effectiveness) and priority setting, that describe how climate change is incorporated into pandemic preparedness and outbreak response planning? 2. What data systems are currently in use or needed to support priority setting for integrated and multisectoral epidemic or pandemic planning for climate-sensitive infectious diseases in Africa? 3. What subnational, national, and regional structures are in place to support joined-up data sharing for CSID outbreak detection and response within and between African countries and the international community? ## Methods ### Rapid Scoping Review The literature review was conducted as a rapid scoping review. Scoping reviews provide a structured approach to mapping existing knowledge, highlighting common themes, and identifying evidence gaps. Rapid reviews streamline these methods, facilitating quicker knowledge translation, especially when urgent policy or strategy decisions are required (19). ### Protocol and registration This rapid scoping review was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The protocol for this study is registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository (20) and is available on MedRxiv (21). ### Eligibility criteria The eligibility criteria are outlined in Table 1. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/T1) Table 1. Scoping Review Eligibility Criteria ### Information sources and search The search strategy was constructed by a library information professional with a focus on four search concepts, namely: * Pandemic preparedness AND * Climate change AND * Economic evaluation (including HTAs and priority setting) OR * Data systems The search was conducted in November 2023 across six bibliographic databases: OvidSP Medline, OvidSP Embase, OvidSP Global Health, EBSCOhost Africa-Wide Information, OvidSP Econlit and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Content. Search terms were first tested in one database prior to implementation in the other five. Additional sources of literature from work previously conducted by co-authors were also included. The complete search strategies for all sources is published at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Data Compass (23). ### Selection of sources of evidence Articles were deduplicated and imported into Covidence software (24). Screening was conducted by single independent reviewers through a three-stage process: title, abstract, and full text screening. At each stage, articles were screened using the “Most relevant” option in Covidence, which employs a machine learning algorithm to predict study relevance based on screening of at least 25 studies (25). Pilot review stages were conducted prior to the abstract and full text screening stages. Prior to the abstract screening stage, the complete team of nine reviewers independently screened abstracts from the same 20 articles and discussed discrepancies to improve consistency. Once consensus was reached, two reviewers independently screened the abstracts for relevance (see S1 Table). Prior to the full text screening stage, two reviewers screened three sets of ten full text publications to iteratively refine screening questions. Once consensus was reached, nine reviewers independently screened the full texts against the full text screening criteria (Fig 2). Any article deemed relevant at the full text screening stage was screened in duplicate by another reviewer to reach consensus. ![Fig 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F2.medium.gif) [Fig 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F2) Fig 2. Full text screening criteria ![Fig 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F3.medium.gif) [Fig 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F3) Fig 3. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram of study selection ### Data charting process The data charting process was conducted using a data extraction form in Covidence designed by one reviewer and reviewed *a priori* by two reviewers with expertise in the relevant areas. The form was tested against 15 papers by one reviewer and iteratively refined prior to use. ### Data items The data extracted included article meta-data and thematic content. Article meta-data included year of publication, publication source (institution and country), first and last authors’ names and institutions, collaborating institutions, source of funding, ethical clearance, and type of publication. Topic data were extracted and thematically categorised based on stage of pandemic preparedness and response framework (Fig 1), relevance to target CSIDs (Table 1), and type of data system or economic study. A final mapping of challenges and constraints was conducted by assessing topics with the least volume or least relevant literature, and by conducting a narrative synthesis identifying repeated themes describing evidence gaps arising in the final study set. ### Synthesis of results The PRISMA flow diagram was created using the PRISMA2020 template (26). We used bibliometric analysis, topic mapping, and narrative summaries to synthesise evidence. A bibliometric analysis was conducted by assessing the temporal trends of authorship and CSIDs studied as well as geographical distribution of the studies across the WHO AFRO region. Temporal trends of authorship were assessed by categorising the institutional affiliations of all authors as follows: African - all author affiliations located within Africa; African & International - author affiliations located both within Africa and internationally; and International - all author affiliations located outside of Africa. Topic mapping was conducted by categorising the proportion of data system or economic studies relevant to each stage of pandemic preparedness and each CSID. A narrative synthesis was conducted by categorising data system and economic studies into sub-categories, summarising identified evidence gaps noted by the study authors, and assessing the gender sensitivity of each study. Data system studies were categorised into two sub-categories: ‘Design’, which included studies that describe the use of multi-disciplinary data systems in pandemic preparedness; and ‘Usage’, which included multidisciplinary analyses that use data from data systems for analyses relevant to pandemic preparedness. The categorisation by this method was chosen to account for the large heterogeneity in the data system studies. Economic studies were categorised into three sub-categories based on study type: Economic evaluations, which include analyses that compare costs of interventions with health outcomes, inclusive of CEAs, CUAs, CBAs, whether or not conducted as part of an HTA; costing studies, which include analyses that consider costs without consideration of health outcomes; and priority setting studies, which are more conceptual or commentary based studies that consider the benefit of economic studies for pandemic preparedness. The extent that gender was considered across the studies was assessed against definitions provided by the WHO intersectionality gender toolkit for research on infectious diseases of poverty (10), including: Gender-blind research ignores gender norms, roles, and relations; Gender-sensitive research considers inequality generated by unequal gender norms, roles, and relations but takes no remedial action to address it; Gender-specific research considers inequality generated by unequal norms, roles, and relations and takes remedial action to address it but does not change underlying power relations. All analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel (27), and figures were produced in R version 4.3.1 via R studio (28). The data extracted from included studies can be found at the OSF ([https://osf.io/fn8rw/?view_only=5961c57df32741b884fc2181a0da4ceb](https://osf.io/fn8rw/?view_only=5961c57df32741b884fc2181a0da4ceb)). ### Protocol amendments We applied two protocol amendments to our review. First, we refined the fourth abstract screening question relating to data systems; specifically, we applied more stringent criteria to how we defined data systems. This amendment was required given the large volume of literature utilising data from data systems. Second, we did not conduct a pilot of data extraction in duplicate. Instead, the data extraction form was produced by one reviewer and refined by two reviewers with extensive experience in either economics or data systems. The form was then applied to ten studies by an independent reviewer and iteratively refined prior to use across the final studies. ## Results ### Selection of sources of evidence The screening process overview is presented in a PRISMA flow chart (Fig 5). A search across six databases resulted in the identification of 14,252 items and an additional 112 studies were retrieved from previous reviews conducted by the research team. After removal of 7,059 duplicate studies, 7,305 studies were screened. During screening, 2,255 studies and then 4,774 studies were removed at the title and abstract screening stages respectively. A total of 276 full texts were screened, culminating in 68 studies that were relevant for data extraction. Of the 68 studies, 50 and 18 were categorised as data system and economic studies, respectively. ### Bibliometric Analysis #### Temporal publication trends The frequency of publications increased between 2010 and 2023 (Fig 4a). Authorship trends indicate increasing involvement of researchers based in African institutions in CSID research since 2010, though mixed institutional research teams continue to be dominated by institutions based worldwide up to the most recent year. African-only authorship, where all authors were affiliated with African-based institutions, emerged in 2018 and peaked in 2020. Further breakdown of authorship found that most first authors were affiliated with global institutions (69%) rather than African institutions (29%), and one author was affiliated to both global and African institutions. Similarly, most senior authors were affiliated with institutions outside Africa (63%) compared with African institutions (34%), and two authors had more than one institutional affiliation in and outside of Africa. COVID-19, Ebola, Influenza, and Rift Valley fever were the most studied target CSIDs (Fig 4b). ![Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F4.medium.gif) [Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F4) Fig 4. Number of studies published over time, by geographical distribution of authors (A), and four most frequently cited CSIDs (B) #### Geographical publication trends Data system studies showed broad coverage across the WHO AFRO region, whereas economic studies were much more concentrated in certain countries (Fig 5). Of the data system studies (n = 50), all countries in the WHO AFRO region were represented in at least one study, largely due to three regional-based studies that included all countries. Nigeria was the most represented country in data system studies, appearing in 36% (18/50) of studies, followed by Ghana and Kenya, which were each represented in 32% (16/50) of studies. In contrast, of the economic studies (n = 18), nearly half of the WHO AFRO countries were not represented at all. South Africa was the most frequently studied country in economic studies, appearing in 28% (5/18) of studies, followed by Ghana and Sierra Leone, each represented in 22% (4/18) of studies. ![Fig 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F5.medium.gif) [Fig 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F5) Fig 5. Distribution of (A) data system studies and (B) economic studies. The distribution of countries was plotted as percentage of frequency of country included across data system or economic studies by total number of data system or economic studies. Countries coloured in grey correspond to countries outside of the WHO AFRO region. ### Topic mapping #### Stage of pandemic preparedness Topic mapping of studies to pandemic preparedness stages revealed distinct focus areas between data system and economic studies, with data systems being more prevalent in earlier stages of pandemic preparedness while economic studies were more concentrated in the later stages (Fig 6). A higher proportion of data system studies were linked to stages 1 and 2 (46% and 28%, respectively) compared with stages 3 or 4 (19% and 9%, respectively). Conversely, a higher proportion of economic studies were linked to stages 3 or 4 (55% and 26%, respectively) compared with stages 1 or 2 (10% across both stages). ![Fig 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F6.medium.gif) [Fig 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F6) Fig 6. Percentage of data system or economic studies mapped to stages of pandemic preparedness. Studies could be relevant to all four stages; percentage was calculated as tagged stage by total of tagged stages in data system studies (n = 50) or economic studies (n = 18). #### Climate-sensitive infectious diseases Topic mapping of studies to CSIDs revealed broad coverage across all CSIDs in data system studies, with Rift Valley fever and Ebola virus disease being the most common (Fig 7). Specifically, data system studies were predominantly focused on five CSIDs: Rift Valley fever (25%), Ebola virus disease (16%), Influenza (14%), COVID-19 (14%), and Lassa fever (9%), although each CSID was represented at least once in the included studies. In contrast, economic studies were restricted to four CSIDs, predominantly focusing on COVID-19 (64%) and Ebola (27%). Influenza and Rift Valley fever were each addressed in 4% of the studies, with both being analysed within the same publication that also covered Ebola (29). ![Fig 7.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F7.medium.gif) [Fig 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F7) Fig 7. Frequency of CSIDs across (A) data system and (B) economic studies. Studies could be mapped to more than one CSID. Abbreviations: COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019; SARS: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; MERs: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. ### Narrative Synthesis: Data system studies The following sections provide a narrative summary mapped to the type of study identified through our screening criteria and the evidence gaps identified by the study authors. The 50 data system studies were categorised into ‘Design’ studies (n = 19) or ‘Usage’ studies (n = 33). Design studies described data systems in pandemic preparedness, while Usage studies were multidisciplinary analyses that integrated data from data systems across two or more data domains across animal, human, or environmental domains. Three studies were categorised as both Design and Usage studies (30–32). #### Design data system studies Of the 19 studies that described data systems in pandemic preparedness (i.e., Design studies), 10 were original research (30, 32–40), five were literature reviews, (41–45), two were outbreak response case studies (46, 47), one was a commentary (48), and one was a letter to the editor (49). Across the 19 Design data system studies, 28 data systems were described with international, regional, national, or local scales (Fig 8, S2 Table). Seven of the data systems were surveillance systems integrating human, animal, or environmental domains (33, 41–44, 47); six were early warning systems (32, 35, 38, 40, 45); four described community-based surveillance systems (33, 36, 44, 49); two were mobile surveillance tools used in participatory disease surveillance methods (33, 34); two were communication tools designed to share risk maps (30, 45); two were diagnostic laboratory systems (42, 46); two were online genomic sequencing systems (31, 48); two were capacity systems to assess one health capacity of countries (39) or coordinate a pandemic response (46); and one study focused on off-line software designed to aid users to predict the causative pathogen of an outbreak (37). ![Fig 8.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F8.medium.gif) [Fig 8.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F8) Fig 8. Frequency of Design data systems by type and scope The varying scopes of data systems demonstrate evidence of data sharing for CSID outbreak detection and response across local (36, 46), national (32, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 49), regional (33, 34, 39, 41, 44), and international levels (30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 42, 45, 48). For example, a local community-based surveillance system in forested areas of Guinea facilitated information exchange across human, animal, and environmental sectors for effective Ebola and Lassa fever response (36). At the national level, the piloted Kenya Animal Biosurveillance System was an early warning system aimed at timely data sharing of Rift Valley fever-associated risk factors and syndromes to detect livestock disease and respond before spill-over to humans (38). Regional data-sharing was evident across the Community-based Active Surveillance and District-based Passive Surveillance systems, part of the Southern Africa One Health Surveillance Strategy, which uses EpiCollect mobile software to enhance disease event detection in human and animal populations, and share data across prospective sectors (33). International structures included mapping communication tools such as MosquitoMap (45) and VizHub (30), which enable online sharing of maps that quantify risk of vector abundance or pathogen transmission with relevant stakeholders. Design data system studies identified limitations in data availability, data sharing across sectors, and surveillance capacity. These limitations encompassed factors such as funding (34, 46) and data availability or reporting issues within the animal sector (38, 43). In the human sector, delays in reporting were often attributed to paper-based data transmission and inadequate infrastructure (33, 38, 40, 45). Collaborative efforts across the human, animal, and environmental sectors were hindered (36, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49) by the absence of standardised guidelines, policies, or frameworks (39, 44). Additionally, studies pointed out limitations in surveillance or laboratory capacity (45, 48, 49). The identified evidence needs encompassed inclusion of vulnerable groups through digitally enabled participatory methods and increased cross-sectoral data sharing. Specifically, these needs encompass the integration of vulnerable groups into disease surveillance (33, 43, 48, 49) or control efforts (34) through adoption of participatory methods harnessing mobile phone technologies (38, 43). Additionally, studies advocated for incorporation of climate data into analyses to enhance understanding of CSID transmission and development of early warning systems (35), or long-term planning of response, control, and mitigation strategies (2). Furthermore, studies described a need for greater political will and capacity to facilitate data-sharing across human and animal sectors (31, 33, 41, 43, 48, 49) underpinned by established data standards, protocols, or centralised platforms (33, 38–41, 44, 45, 49), the pooling of multisectoral funds to support One Health policies (41) and increased private sector (46) or governmental (34) financial support. Other needs included the incorporation of fine-scale data collected across broader regions (50, 51), utilisation of modelling studies to direct surveillance resources (42, 47, 50), and bolstered veterinary (42, 49) and laboratory (40, 41) capacities to effectively address challenges posed by CSIDs. #### Usage data system studies Of the 33 multidisciplinary studies that integrated data from data systems (i.e., Usage studies), 12 were risk mapping studies (30, 32, 52–61), ten were association studies (50, 62–70), seven were both risk mapping and association studies, and four were phylogenetic analyses (31, 51, 71, 72) (Fig 9, S3 Table). We did not find any attribution studies. The different study types included varying domains across human, animal, and environmental data. For example, most association studies (n = 7) investigated the association of environmental variables on human response variables, such as that of ambient temperature exposure on COVID-19 transmission, whereas all phylogenetic analyses (n = 4) investigated spill-over between humans and animals. ![Fig 9.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F9.medium.gif) [Fig 9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/F9) Fig 9. Frequency of Usage data systems study by study type and integration of data domain Evidence gaps identified in Usage studies surrounded data availability and cross-sector data sharing or coordination. Specifically, gaps revolved around inadequate availability of animal health data, often stemming from weak surveillance across the animal sector (52, 53, 65, 73, 74) or spatial biases in sampling and surveillance data (2, 51, 58, 71, 72). Additionally, deficiencies were noted in coordination between human, animal, and environmental surveillance systems (57) compounded by limitations in reporting capacity (31, 70) and limited temporal and spatial resolution of selected environmental data (75). Evidence needs described in Usage studies included increased empirical data collection during outbreaks (52, 53) or routine surveillance (65) supported by participatory approaches to ensure data collection and inclusion of vulnerable groups (57). Furthermore, there was a call for the adoption of an integrated, One Health approach to surveillance, emphasising cross-sectoral and transboundary collaboration (31) alongside improved data sharing across animal and human sectors (61, 71, 72). Such initiatives should be supported by established data standards (62). Additionally, studies recognised the need for human and animal data linkage on a fine spatial scale (50–53), coupled with the integration of environmental data to deepen our understanding of the impact of climate change on CSID transmission (2, 58, 59, 64, 67, 76). These insights would inform the allocation of surveillance or control strategies (59, 63, 75, 77). #### Gender-sensitivity of data system studies Of the data system studies that included human data (n = 41), 38 studies were considered gender-blind, two were considered to be gender-sensitive (37, 40), and one gender-specific (36). Of the gender-sensitive studies, one described a system for predicting the causative pathogen of an outbreak which was programmed to disaggregate by gender and age (37), and one study reported Rift Valley fever cases by gender (40). The authors of the gender-specific study included women as key stakeholders in a surveillance data system, acknowledging their important role in disease detection despite their frequent under-representation (36). While gender-blind studies did not consider gender, some considered other marginalised groups including rural communities (43, 73), socioeconomically marginalised groups (43, 49, 73), or youth groups (46). Notably, two studies placed an emphasis on understanding the association of multiple demographic variables, such as age and socioeconomic status, with COVID-19 transmission, but did not include gender as a variable in the analysis (70, 78). ### Narrative Synthesis: Economic studies The 18 economic studies were comprised of economic evaluations (n = 10), which included CEAs and CUAs; costing studies (n = 3); and priority setting papers (n = 5). #### Economic evaluation studies Economic evaluation studies (n = 10) investigated the cost effectiveness of vaccination strategies (79–83), non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (84–86), or clinical critical care treatments (87, 88), and were limited to COVID-19 (n = 8) or Ebola (n = 2) (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/T2) Table 2: Summary of economic evaluation studies Evidence gaps identified by the economic evaluation study authors highlighted significant deficiencies in data availability in relation to intervention efficacy and resource use/cost information and limited regional capacity for the conduct of economic evaluations. Specifically, studies reported a lack of data availability surrounding COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness (83), COVID-19 immunity data (79–81, 83), and costing data (83, 84). Some studies noted a lack of local data regarding COVID-19, necessitating reliance on UK estimates (83) or rendering the models unparameterizable to the local setting (87). Others discussed limited regional capacity for economic evaluations, specifically highlighting such aspects as an absence of established willingness to pay thresholds in South Africa (79) or more generally across LMICs (82); a limited ability to compare cost-effectiveness estimates due to a lack of economic evaluations (88); or a failure to consider health system restraints (80). Additionally, one study addressed the challenge of incorporating human productivity loss into economic analyses of Ebola (86). Stated evidence needs included broadening cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines to incorporate the far-reaching impacts of COVID-19 (83) and accounting for wealth inequity through subpopulation analyses (82). Additionally, extrapolation of epidemiological and economic models to other settings for informing vaccination purchasing (80), and incorporation of timing into evaluations for more realistic cost-effectiveness assessments (81). #### Costing studies The three costing studies analysed the costs of various initiatives across vaccination programs, a surveillance system, and outbreak response. One study presented cost estimates of a COVID-19 vaccination program in Ghana utilizing the COVID-19 Vaccination Introduction and Deployment Costing Tool, and undertaken under the leadership of the Ghana HTA program (89); another was a micro-costing study of a community-based surveillance (CBS) system for detecting Ebola and COVID-19 (among non-target CSIDs) in Sierra Leone (90); and the final study costed the US CDC’s response to Ebola outbreaks across Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia (91) (Table 3). View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/T3) Table 3: Summary of costing studies View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/23/2024.09.20.24314043/T4) Table 4: Summary of priority setting studies Evidence gaps described in the studies included delays in reporting by community health workers within the CBS and inconsistency in performance incentives being distributed (90), and lack of cost records attained within Ebola outbreaks resulting in the potential underestimate of costs (91). Evidence needs included using the established COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and Deployment Costing (CVIC) tool for costing the introduction of vaccinations across LMICs (89) and incorporating reporting of symptoms of COVID-19 and other future emerging infections into existing CBS for an early-warning systems (90). #### Priority setting studies Priority setting papers described the role of economic evaluations and associated priority setting tools or guidelines to support decision-making. Among the five studies, one described the application of HTAs for equitable decision-making in COVID-19 in LMICs (92), while another described the Evidence-to-Decision Framework utilised by the South African Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) network to generate 42 rapid reviews for timely COVID-19 response (93). Another study considered economic evaluation, community participation, and ethical considerations in priority setting for COVID-19 response (94), and one discussed economic evaluation and evidence synthesis processes for priority setting across the four stages of pandemic preparedness (95). Lastly, a study discussed potentially cost-effective control strategies for animal and zoonotic diseases, including Rift Valley fever, Influenza and Ebola, in pastoralist populations (29), marking the sole economic study to address CSIDs beyond Ebola or COVID-19. The authors of priority setting studies highlighted several evidence gaps, including potential barriers to the application of HTAs and challenges stemming from insufficient collaboration or capacity within the animal sector. Specifically, these gaps encompassed the complexity of HTAs as a barrier to decision-making (92, 95); a lack of collaboration resulting in duplicated efforts and resource wastage during the COVID-19 pandemic (93); limitations in animal disease surveillance and data maintenance impeding timely outbreak detection; and the absence of a stringent framework for monitoring the success of animal interventions leading to hesitancy in investment by institutional donors (29). In addition, authors highlighted the need to increase regional capacity and collaboration while utilising participatory methods to enhance economic benefits and achieve equitable resource allocation. This would include leveraging strong leadership with political and institutional support to integrate HTAs into policy-making and foster regional technical expertise (92) and facilitating collaboration between designated working groups to prevent duplication of evidence synthesis efforts (30). Additionally, studies suggested employing mobile phone technologies in near real-time community-based surveillance systems, integrating multi-disease zoonotic CSID control approaches to optimise intervention benefit-cost ratios in pastoral areas (29), and enhancing community participation and expert ethical consideration for equitable resource allocation during pandemics (94, 95). #### Gender-sensitivity of economic studies Of the economic studies, 16 were considered gender-blind according to the WHO intersectionality toolkit (10), and two were gender-specific. Of the gender-specific studies, one study discussed gender and socioeconomically marginalised groups as stakeholders that could benefit from HTAs, noting that power dynamics between groups could limit their inclusion into HTA processes (92). The other gender-specific study discussed how vulnerability to pandemics could be exacerbated by gender and socioeconomic status, highlighting the importance of their consideration into research priorities and resource allocation within pandemic preparedness (95). Of the gender -blind studies, two considered other vulnerable groups in the analysis, focusing on the elderly as high risk to COVID-19 (83) or implementing cost-effective control strategies against zoonoses in pastoralist communities (29). ### Critical appraisal within sources of evidence A critical appraisal of evidence was not conducted. ## Discussion We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify research needs for improving priority setting for pandemic preparedness in sub-Saharan Africa, focusing on data system and economic studies related to 14 CSIDs with pandemic potential. Our analysis revealed that while African author involvement is increasing, there remain few studies led by senior authors from African institutions, underscoring the need for research funders to support more locally led research efforts. Peer-reviewed economic studies on CSIDs are limited, with most research focusing on COVID-19 and Ebola and originating from South Africa, highlighting a gap in resource allocation and capacity for other diseases. The high degree of heterogeneity across data system studies, along with poor data sharing across siloed sectors, indicates a need for clear data system definitions and guidelines to develop interoperable and scalable solutions. Additionally, the limited inclusion of gender-sensitive perspectives in both economic and data system studies points to a significant gap that should be addressed to ensure more comprehensive and equitable pandemic preparedness strategies. Taken together, these identified gaps present important opportunities to enhance priority setting, improve resource allocation, and achieve more equitable health outcomes across the region. ### Gaps and opportunities Studies with all authors affiliated with African institutions were limited throughout the study period, with the first such study appearing only in 2018. Additionally, the majority of first authors (69%) and last authors (63%) were affiliated with institutions outside of Africa. Although our sample size is small, these trends are consistent with recent research findings on climate change research capacity within the East African region (96). These regional gaps may indicate a lack of local capacity in data systems or economic studies. However, they could also reflect global power dynamics and funding inequalities, where international funders predominantly support global institutions. This often results in first and last authors being from outside Africa, potentially leading to research questions and priorities being set without adequate input from African researchers. Addressing these disparities is important for fostering a more equitable and effective research environment. The concentration of economic studies across COVID-19 and Ebola, and primarily conducted in South Africa, suggests a broader deficiency in capacity and technical expertise for conducting similar evaluations across the rest of the WHO AFRO region and for other CSIDs. This observation is consistent with findings from a previous review that assessed HTA institutionalisation in sub-Saharan Africa (97), which highlighted a lack of expertise and tools for context-specific decision-making aligned with locally agreed frameworks for economic evaluation. To address these deficiencies, developing national HTA frameworks that include the use of context specific economic evaluations could significantly enhance priority-setting systems (17, 98). These frameworks should incorporate a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives and extend the usual role of HTAs to address key questions, such as how to fund or create priority-setting processes that link climate change and CSID response, and what existing structures support intersectoral actions for pandemic preparedness. Such country-specific HTA frameworks would help assess existing resources and could be applied to a range of CSIDs beyond COVID-19 and Ebola, including emerging threats such as Mpox, which was recently declared a PHEIC by the WHO (99). Additionally, HTA-based priority setting approaches and economic evaluations could be applied to earlier stages of the pandemic preparedness framework, to assess prevention and detection strategies. The prominence of COVID-19 studies likely accounts for most of the identified peer reviewed economic studies focusing on later stages of pandemic preparedness, due to the epidemiological situation at the time of publication. Economic evaluations targeting earlier stages, for example on preventing emerging infectious diseases with pandemic potential, could highlight the benefits of investing in prevention and support the use of financing tools like Development Impact Bonds, where donors share the risk of investing in high-risk prevention strategies (29). We found a large degree of heterogeneity in data system literature, reflecting a lack of clear and universally agreed-upon definitions of data systems related to pandemic preparedness. Establishing these definitions would guide the creation of more effective data systems that provide decision-makers with accurate and timely information. For pandemic preparedness against CSIDs, these definitions should emphasise interoperability and data harmonisation to enable the routine integration of diverse data sources, such as human health, animal health, and environmental data. Such data systems would enhance data sharing across traditionally siloed sectors, addressing a significant gap identified by both data system and economic studies in this review. Sectoral silos and a lack of digital integration platforms are common barriers to data sharing, which hinder evidence-driven decision-making in a One Health context (100, 101), despite recommendations from the One Health Joint Plan of Action (101). The Digital One Health (DOH) framework, based on the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Re-use), aims to address these barriers by consolidating data-sharing across five key pillars (102). These pillars focus on harmonising and automating standardisation according to ethical and legal guidelines, determining which data can be shared, such as pathogen characteristics and patient gender, or withheld, such as patient name or contact. The framework is currently being piloted in antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Uganda (100). Tailoring such frameworks to the specific challenges faced across decision-making in pandemic preparedness could bridge siloed efforts, enhance coordination, and provide high-quality data for pandemic preparedness decision-making. Limited gender-sensitivity across both data systems and economic studies may result in inadequate consideration of gender-specific impacts and needs in pandemic preparedness, despite a growing body of evidence that highlights the differential effects of pandemics on various genders (7–10). Participatory approaches can provide methodologies for gender-transformative change, by identifying vulnerable groups that are context specific and including them into research and subsequent decision-making (10). Digital participatory methods, such as use of mobile phone applications for reporting animal cases can facilitate near-real-time reporting of suspected outbreaks (103), and also help to incorporate hard-to-reach populations into decision-making processes. Importantly, digital inequities may hinder the inclusion of marginalised groups, particularly women and girls (9, 103), due to limited access to technological education (104), especially in low- and middle-income countries. Therefore, developing participatory digital tools that are culturally and contextually informed and investing in digital skills for those who need them most, should be an important consideration for pandemic preparedness. We did not find any data system studies that directly attributed human CSID-related health outcomes to human-caused climate change, despite numerous studies assessing associations between environmental variables and health outcomes. This reflects a broader gap in attribution research; a recent report identified only 13 studies globally since 2013 that rigorously assessed health impacts attributable to human-caused climate change (105), with the only CSID study that attributed human-caused climate change to increased childhood malaria in sub-Saharan Africa (106). The lack of attribution research on CSIDs is notable, given that the impact of climate change on CSID-related health outcomes is a priority for attribution research (105). Enhancing data integration across human, animal, and environmental domains through interoperable systems could facilitate assessments of long-term trends and associations, inform counterfactual analyses of climate scenarios, and support economic evaluations of mitigation and adaptation strategies (107). Such efforts could significantly strengthen the evidence base on the health impacts of climate change on CSIDs. #### Limitations We did not conduct a grey literature search due to the expedited timelines of the rapid scoping review, likely omitting relevant literature including governmental policy reports that may describe governmental data-system and economic evaluation use. To mitigate this limitation, we utilised the expertise of the project steering committee and their experience across complementary reviews, screening additional studies they identified as potentially relevant. Secondly, we only included papers published in English. As a result, an English-language bias may have caused the omission of studies published by authors from countries where English is not the first language, the inclusion of which may alter the conclusions drawn. Thirdly, to manage the number of publications, we only included studies that explicitly mentioned target CSIDs. This may have excluded some publications relevant to pandemic preparedness of CSIDs in less explicit yet important ways, such as focusing on the mode of transmission rather than the pathogen or illness. Broadening the scope to include these studies may provide useful insights into wider data systems or economic evaluations for pandemic preparedness, such as the use of Natural Capital Accounting to assess the broader impacts of disease outbreaks on ecosystem services and public health, which would be excluded unless it explicitly mentioned a target CSID. Finally, the rapid nature of the review process precluded in-depth quality assessments of the included studies. Future reviews should incorporate comprehensive quality appraisals to better understand the reliability and validity of the evidence base. ## Conclusions Our rapid scoping review revealed significant evidence gaps in data systems and economics for priority setting of pandemic preparedness in sub-Saharan Africa. Key issues include limited African-led research, a scarcity of peer-reviewed economic studies on most CSIDs, inadequate data sharing across human, animal, and environmental domains, and insufficient application of gender-sensitive perspectives. Addressing these gaps presents important opportunities to enhance decision-making in pandemic preparedness and ensure more effective and inclusive responses to emerging infectious disease threats. This need is especially urgent given the changing climate, which increases the risk of CSID pandemics, as demonstrated by the recent Mpox outbreaks. ## Data Availability The data is available at the Open Science Framework at [https://osf.io/fn8rw/?view\_only=5961c57df32741b884fc2181a0da4ceb](https://osf.io/fn8rw/?view_only=5961c57df32741b884fc2181a0da4ceb) ## CRediT author statement **Ellie A. Delight:** Methodology; Formal analysis; Investigation; Data Curation; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Visualization. **Ariel A. Brunn:** Conceptualization; Methodology; Validation; Investigation; Resources; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Supervision; Project administration; Funding acquisition. **Francis Ruiz:** Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation; Resources; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing. **Jessica Gerard:** Formal analysis; Investigation; Data Curation; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Visualization. **Jane Falconer**: Methodology; Software; Validation; Investigation; Data Curation; Writing - Review & Editing. **Yang Liu**: Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing - Review & Editing. **Bubacarr Bah:** Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing - Review & Editing. **Bernard Bett:** Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing - Review & Editing. **Benjamin Uzochukwu:** Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing - Review & Editing. **Oladeji K. Oloko:** Conceptualization; Writing - Review & Editing. **Esther Njuguna:** Conceptualization; Writing - Review & Editing. **Kris A. Murray**: Conceptualization; Methodology; Validation; Investigation; Writing - Review & Editing; Supervision; Project administration; Funding acquisition. ## Competing interests FR was supported by funding received from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1202541) through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). All other authors declare that they have no actual or potential competing interests that could have influenced the work reported herein. ## Supporting information **S1 Table: Screening guidance** **S2 Table: Summary of Design Data system studies** **S3 Table: Summary of Usage Data System studies** ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the International Development Research Centre (PO5001440). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript. The opinions expressed here belong to the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the funder. * Received September 20, 2024. * Revision received September 20, 2024. * Accepted September 23, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Mora C, McKenzie T, Gaw IM, Dean JM, Von Hammerstein H, Knudson TA, et al. Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2022;12(9):869–75. 2. 2.Anyamba A, Linthicum KJ, Small JL, Collins KM, Tucker CJ, Pak EW, et al. Climate Teleconnections and Recent Patterns of Human and Animal Disease Outbreaks. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;6(1):e1465. 3. 3.Gibb R, Redding DW, Chin KQ, Donnelly CA, Blackburn TM, Newbold T, et al. Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems. Nature. 2020;584(7821):398–402. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32759999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 4. 4.Carlson CJ, Albery GF, Merow C, Trisos CH, Zipfel CM, Eskew EA, et al. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature. 2022;607(7919):555–62. 5. 5.Wilder-Smith A, Osman S. Public health emergencies of international concern: a historic overview. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2020;27(8). 6. 6.WHO. Prioritizing diseases for research and development in emergency contexts. Prioritizing diseases for research and development in emergency contexts. 2022. 7. 7.Dalal J, Triulzi I, James A, Nguimbis B, Dri GG, Venkatasubramanian A, et al. COVID-19 mortality in women and men in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(11):e007225. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTI6IjYvMTEvZTAwNzIyNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA5LzIzLzIwMjQuMDkuMjAuMjQzMTQwNDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 8. 8.Yeboah H, Yaya S. Health and economic implications of the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on women and children in Africa. Reprod Health. 2023;20(1):70. 9. 9.Alon T, Doepke M, Olmstead-Rumsey J, Tertilt M. The Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Equality. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. 10. 10.WHO. Incorporating Intersectional Gender Analysis Into Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty: A toolkit for health researchers. Geneva; 2020. 11. 11.Trisos CH, I.O. Adelekan, E. Totin, A. Ayanlade, J. Efitre, A. Gemeda, K. Kalaba, C. Lennard, C. Masao, Y. Mgaya, G. Ngaruiya, D. Olago, N.P. Simpson, S. Zakieldeen. Africa. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2023. p. 1285-456. 12. 12.Africa suffers disproportionately from climate change [press release]. Ghana2023. 13. 13.Arisco NJ, Sewe MO, Barnighausen T, Sie A, Zabre P, Bunker A. The effect of extreme temperature and precipitation on cause-specific deaths in rural Burkina Faso: a longitudinal study. The Lancet Planetary health. 2023;7(6):e478–e89. 14. 14.Zuurmond M, Nyapera V, Mwenda V, Kisia J, Rono H, Palmer J. Childhood disability in Turkana, Kenya: Understanding how carers cope in a complex humanitarian setting. Afr J Disabil. 2016;5(1):277. 15. 15.Phillips CA, Caldas A, Cleetus R, Dahl KA, Declet-Barreto J, Licker R, et al. Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Climate Change. 2020;10(7):586–8. 16. 16.Huber C, Finelli L, Stevens W. The Economic and Social Burden of the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2018;218(Supplement_5):S698–S704. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiy213&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 17. 17.Ruiz F, Gulliver S, Baker P. iDSI Guide and Reporting Template for HTA Situational Analyses. iDSI; 2024. 18. 18.WHO. Ebola and Marburg virus disease epidemics: preparedness, alert, control, and evaluation. 2014 2014. 19. 19.Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016;14(1):83. 20. 20.A Protocol for a Scoping Study of Economic and Data System Considerations for Climate Change and Pandemic Preparedness in Africa [Internet]. Open Science Framework. 2024. 21. 21.Brunn AA, Ruiz F, Falconer J, Delight E, Gerard J, Liu Y, et al. A Protocol for a Scoping Study of Economic and Data System Considerations for Climate Change and Pandemic Preparedness in Africa. Medrxiv. 2024. 22. 22.WHO AFRO. Countries 2024 [Available from: [https://www.afro.who.int/countries](https://www.afro.who.int/countries). 23. 23.Search strategies for “Scoping study of Economic and Data System Considerations for Climate Change and Pandemic Preparedness in Africa” [Internet]. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 2024. Available from: doi:10.17037/DATA.00003769. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.17037/DATA.00003769&link_type=DOI) 24. 24.Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia2024. 25. 25.Veritas Health Innovation. [cited 2024]. Available from: [https://www.covidence.org/blog/machine-learning-the-game-changer-for-trustworthy-evidence/](https://www.covidence.org/blog/machine-learning-the-game-changer-for-trustworthy-evidence/). 26. 26.Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2):e1230. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cl2.1230&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. 2024. 28. 28.Team R. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio; 2020. 29. 29.Zinsstag J, Abakar MF, Ibrahim M, Tschopp R, Crump L, Bonfoh B, et al. Cost-effective control strategies for animal and zoonotic diseases in pastoralist populations. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics). 2016;35(2):673–81. 30. 30.Pigott DM, Millear AI, Earl L, Morozoff C, Han BA, Shearer FM, et al. Updates to the zoonotic niche map of Ebola virus disease in Africa. eLife. 2016;5. 31. 31.Meseko CA, Odurinde OO, Olaniran BO, Heidari A, Oluwayelu DO. Pandemic influenza A/H1N1 virus incursion into Africa: countries, hosts and phylogenetic analysis. Nigerian Veterinary Journal. 2015;36(3):1251–61. 32. 32.Lafaye M, Sall B, Ndiaye Y, Vignolles C, Tourre YM, Borchi FO, et al. Rift Valley fever dynamics in Senegal: a project for pro-active adaptation and improvement of livestock raising management. Geospatial health. 2013;8(1):279–88. 33. 33.Karimuribo ED, Sayalel K, Beda E, Short N, Wambura P, Mboera LG, et al. Towards one health disease surveillance: the Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance approach. The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research. 2012;79(2):454. 34. 34.Liebenberg L, Steventon J, Brahman I, Benadie K, Minye J, Langwane H, et al. Smartphone Icon User Interface design for non-literate trackers and its implications for an inclusive citizen science. Biological Conservation. 2017;208:155–62. 35. 35.1. Tourre YM, 2. Lacaux JP, 3. Vignolles C, 4. Ndione JA, 5. Lafaye M , editors. Rift Valley Fever (RVF) risks in Senegal using high-resolution remote sensing2010; Kyoto, JAPAN. 36. 36.Guenin M-J, De Nys HM, Peyre M, Loire E, Thongyuan S, Diallo A, et al. A participatory epidemiological and One Health approach to explore the community’s capacity to detect emerging zoonoses and surveillance network opportunities in the forest region of Guinea. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2022;16(7):e0010462. 37. 37.Baldassi F, Cenciarelli O, Malizia A, Gaudio P. First Prototype of the Infectious Diseases Seeker (IDS) Software for Prompt Identification of Infectious Diseases. Journal of epidemiology and global health. 2020;10(4):367–77. 38. 38.Oyas H, Holmstrom L, Kemunto NP, Muturi M, Mwatondo A, Osoro E, et al. Enhanced surveillance for Rift Valley Fever in livestock during El Nino rains and threat of RVF outbreak, Kenya, 2015-2016. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(4):e0006353. 39. 39.Zhao HQ, Fei SW, Yin JX, Li Q, Jiang TG, Guo ZY, et al. Assessment of performance for a key indicator of One Health: evidence based on One Health index for zoonoses in Sub-Saharan Africa. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2022;11(1):109. 40. 40.Ramadan OPC, Berta KK, Wamala JF, Maleghemi S, Rumunu J, Ryan C, et al. Analysis of the 2017-2018 Rift valley fever outbreak in Yirol East County, South Sudan: a one health perspective. The Pan African medical journal. 2022;42(Suppl 1):5. 41. 41.Massengo NRB, Tinto B, Simonin Y. One health approach to arbovirus control in Africa: interests, challenges, and difficulties. Microorganisms. 2023;11(6). 42. 42.Burke RL, Kronmann KC, Daniels CC, Meyers M, Byarugaba DK, Dueger E, et al. A review of zoonotic disease surveillance supported by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. Zoonoses and public health. 2012;59(3):164–75. 43. 43.Goutard FL, Binot A, Duboz R, Rasamoelina-Andriamanivo H, Pedrono M, Holl D, et al. How to reach the poor? Surveillance in low-income countries, lessons from experiences in Cambodia and Madagascar. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2015;120(1):12–26. 44. 44.Zimmerman DM, Mitchell SL, Wolf TM, Deere JR, Noheri JB, Takahashi E, et al. Great ape health watch: enhancing surveillance for emerging infectious diseases in great apes. Special Issue: One health. 2022;84(4/5). 45. 45.Witt CJ, Richards AL, Masuoka PM, Foley DH, Buczak AL, Musila LA, et al. The AFHSC-Division of GEIS Operations Predictive Surveillance Program: a multidisciplinary approach for the early detection and response to disease outbreaks. BMC public health. 2011;11 Suppl 2:S10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S10&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21501427&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 46. 46.Abayomi A, Balogun MR, Bankole M, Banke-Thomas A, Mutiu B, Olawepo J, et al. From Ebola to COVID-19: emergency preparedness and response plans and actions in Lagos, Nigeria. Global Health. 2021;17(1):79. 47. 47.Hassan OA, Ahlm C, Evander M. A need for one health approach-lessons learned from outbreaks of Rift Valley fever in Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Infection Ecology and Epidemiology. 2014;4(1):20710. 48. 48.Holmes EC, Rambaut A, Andersen KG. Pandemics: Spend on surveillance, not prediction comment. Nature. 2018;558(7709):180-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/d41586-018-05373-w&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 49. 49.Tambo E, Adetunde OT, Olalubi OA. Re-emerging Lassa fever outbreaks in Nigeria: Re-enforcing “One Health” community surveillance and emergency response practice. Infectious diseases of poverty. 2018;7(1):37. 50. 50.McKendrick JQ, Tennant WSD, Tildesley MJ. Modelling seasonality of Lassa fever incidences and vector dynamics in Nigeria. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2023;17(11):e0011543. 51. 51.Olayemi A, Adesina AS, Strecker T, Magassouba NF, Fichet-Calvet E. Determining Ancestry between Rodent- and Human-Derived Virus Sequences in Endemic Foci: Towards a More Integral Molecular Epidemiology of Lassa Fever within West Africa. Biology. 2020;9(2). 52. 52.Arsevska E, Hellal J, Mejri S, Hammami S, Marianneau P, Calavas D, et al. Identifying Areas Suitable for the Occurrence of Rift Valley Fever in North Africa: Implications for Surveillance. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2016;63(6):658–74. 53. 53.Bogoch II, Brady OJ, Kraemer MUG, German M, Creatore MI, Brent S, et al. Potential for Zika virus introduction and transmission in resource-limited countries in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region: a modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2016;16(11):1237–45. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30270-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27593584&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 54. 54.Brown M, Moore L, McMahon B, Powell D, Labute M, Hyman JM, et al. Constructing Rigorous and Broad Biosurveillance Networks for Detecting Emerging Zoonotic Outbreaks. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0124037. 55. 55.Guilloteau C, Gosset M, Vignolles C, Alcoba M, Tourre YM, Lacaux J-P. Impacts of Satellite-Based Rainfall Products on Predicting Spatial Patterns of Rift Valley Fever Vectors*. Journal of Hydrometeorology. 2014;15(4):1624–35. 56. 56.Jagadesh S, Combe M, Nacher M, Gozlan R. In search for the hotspots of Disease X: A biogeographic approach to mapping the predictive risk of WHO’s blueprint priority diseases. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020;101(Supplement 1):220. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1484&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33031941&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 57. 57.Mahama PNJ, Kabo-Bah AT, Blanford JI, Yamba EI, Antwi-Agyei P. Reviewing the Past, Present, and Future Risks of Pathogens in Ghana and What This Means for Rethinking Infectious Disease Surveillance for Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2022;2022:4589007. 58. 58.Nyakarahuka L, Ayebare S, Mosomtai G, Kankya C, Lutwama J, Mwiine FN, et al. Ecological Niche Modeling for Filoviruses: A Risk Map for Ebola and Marburg Virus Disease Outbreaks in Uganda. PLoS currents. 2017;9. 59. 59.Ochieng AO, Nanyingi M, Kipruto E, Ondiba IM, Amimo FA, Oludhe C, et al. Ecological niche modelling of Rift Valley fever virus vectors in Baringo, Kenya. Infection ecology & epidemiology. 2016;6:32322. 60. 60.Pigott D, Golding N, Mylne A, Huang Z, Henry A, Weiss D, et al. Mapping the Zoonotic niche of Ebola virus disease in Africa. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2014;91(5 SUPPL. 1):590. 61. 61.Simons D, Attfield LA, Jones KE, Watson-Jones D, Kock R. Rodent trapping studies as an overlooked information source for understanding endemic and novel zoonotic spillover. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2023;17(1):e0010772. 62. 62.Aidoo EN, Adebanji AO, Awashie GE, Appiah SK. The effects of weather on the spread of COVID-19: evidence from Ghana. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2021;45(1):20. 63. 63.Anyamba A, Damoah R, Kemp A, Small JL, Rostal MK, Bagge W, et al. Climate Conditions During a Rift Valley Fever Post-epizootic Period in Free State, South Africa, 2014-2019. Frontiers in veterinary science. 2021;8:730424. 64. 64.Anyamba A, Small JL, Britch SC, Tucker CJ, Pak EW, Reynolds CA, et al. Recent weather extremes and impacts on agricultural production and vector-borne disease outbreak patterns. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(3):e92538. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0092538&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24658301&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 65. 65.Azziz-Baumgartner E, Dao C, Nasreen S, Bhuiyan MU, Munir ME, Al Mamun A, et al. Seasonality, timing, and climate drivers of influenza activity worldwide. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2011;85(6 SUPPL. 1):427. 66. 66.Boufekane A, Busico G, Maizi D. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the COVID-19 pandemic in different climates: a study across some regions in Algeria (North Africa). Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;29(12):18077–102. 67. 67.Cambaza EM, Viegas GC, Cambaza CM. Potential impact of temperature and atmospheric pressure on the number of cases of COVID-19 in Mozambique, Southern Africa. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. 2020;12(3):246–60. 68. 68.Diouf I, Sy S, Senghor H, Fall P, Diouf D, Diakhate M, et al. Potential Contribution of Climate Conditions on COVID-19 Pandemic Transmission over West and North African Countries. Atmosphere. 2022;13(1). 69. 69.Meo SA, Abukhalaf AA, Alomar AA, Al-Beeshi IZ, Alhowikan A, Shafi KM, et al. Climate and COVID-19 pandemic: effect of heat and humidity on the incidence and mortality in world’s top ten hottest and top ten coldest countries. European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. 2020;24(15):8232–8. 70. 70.Pana TA, Bhattacharya S, Gamble DT, Pasdar Z, Szlachetka WA, Perdomo-Lampignano JA, et al. Country-level determinants of the severity of the first global wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an ecological study. BMJ open. 2021;11(2):e042034. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMi9lMDQyMDM0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMjMvMjAyNC4wOS4yMC4yNDMxNDA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 71. 71.Arruda LB, Free HB, Simons D, Ansumana R, Elton L, Haider N, et al. Current sampling and sequencing biases of Lassa mammarenavirus limit inference from phylogeography and molecular epidemiology in Lassa fever endemic regions. PLOS global public health. 2023;3(11):e0002159. 72. 72.Chan JM, Rabadan R. Quantifying pathogen surveillance using temporal genomic data. mBio. 2013;4(1):e00524–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/mBio.00524-13&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23943763&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 73. 73.Fuller T, Thomassen HA, Mulembakani PM, Johnston SC, Lloyd-Smith JO, Kisalu NK, et al. Using remote sensing to map the risk of human monkeypox virus in the Congo Basin. EcoHealth. 2011;8(1):14–25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10393-010-0355-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21069425&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 74. 74.Glancey MM, Anyamba A, Linthicum KJ. Epidemiologic and Environmental Risk Factors of Rift Valley Fever in Southern Africa from 2008 to 2011. Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, NY). 2015;15(8):502–11. 75. 75.Walsh MG, Amstislavski P, Greene A, Haseeb MA. The landscape epidemiology of seasonal clustering of highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) in domestic poultry in Africa, Europe and Asia. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2017;64(5):1465–78. 76. 76. Lo Iacono G, Cunningham AA, Bett B, Grace D, Redding DW, Wood JLN. Environmental limits of Rift Valley fever revealed using ecoepidemiological mechanistic models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2018;115(31):E7448–E56. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE1LzMxL0U3NDQ4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMjMvMjAyNC4wOS4yMC4yNDMxNDA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 77. 77.Mosomtai G, Evander M, Sandstrom P, Ahlm C, Sang R, Hassan OA, et al. Association of ecological factors with Rift Valley fever occurrence and mapping of risk zones in Kenya. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2016;46:49–55. 78. 78.Ameh Yaro C, Udama PS, Abu Anyebe D. Risk analysis and hot spots detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nigeria using demographic and environmental variables: an early assessment of transmission dynamics. International journal of environmental health research. 2022;32(5):1111–22. 79. 79.Reddy KP, Fitzmaurice KP, Scott JA, Harling G, Lessells RJ, Panella C, et al. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in South Africa. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6238. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/S41467-021-26557-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F23%2F2024.09.20.24314043.atom) 80. 80.Ruiz FJ, Torres-Rueda S, Pearson CAB, Bergren E, Okeke C, Procter SR, et al. What, how and who: Cost-effectiveness analyses of COVID-19 vaccination to inform key policies in Nigeria. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(3):e0001693. 81. 81.Liu Y, Pearson CAB, Montero AM, Torres-Rueda S, Asfaw E, Uzochukwu B, et al. Assessing the impacts of timing on the health benefits, cost-effectiveness and relative affordability of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in 27 African Countries. medRxiv; 2022. 82. 82.Obeng-Kusi M, Erstad B, Roe DJ, Abraham I. Comparative value-based pricing of an Ebola vaccine in resource-constrained countries based on cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):894–902. 83. 83.Orangi S, Ojal J, Brand SP, Orlendo C, Kairu A, Aziza R, et al. Epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Kenya. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(8):e009430. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjcvOC9lMDA5NDMwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMjMvMjAyNC4wOS4yMC4yNDMxNDA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 84. 84.Reddy KP, Shebl FM, Foote JHA, Harling G, Scott JA, Panella C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa: a microsimulation modelling study. The Lancet Global Health. 2021;9(2):e120–e9. 85. 85.Asamoah JKK, Owusu MA, Jin Z, Oduro FT, Abidemi A, Gyasi EO. Global stability and cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 considering the impact of the environment: using data from Ghana. Chaos, solitons, and fractals. 2020;140:110103. 86. 86.Kellerborg K, Brouwer W, van Baal P. Costs and benefits of early response in the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Sierra Leone. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2020;18(1):13. 87. 87.Kairu A, Were V, Isaaka L, Agweyu A, Aketch S, Barasa E. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of essential and advanced critical care for COVID-19 patients in Kenya. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(12):e007168. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTI6IjYvMTIvZTAwNzE2OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA5LzIzLzIwMjQuMDkuMjAuMjQzMTQwNDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 88. 88.Beshah SA, Zeru A, Tadele W, Defar A, Getachew T, Fekadu Assebe L. A cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 critical care interventions in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a modeling study. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E. 2023;21(1):40. 89. 89.Nonvignon J, Owusu R, Asare B, Adjagba A, Aun YW, Yeung KHT, et al. Estimating the cost of COVID-19 vaccine deployment and introduction in Ghana using the CVIC tool. Vaccine. 2022;40(12):1879–87. 90. 90.Mergenthaler C, Van Den Broek A, Bakker M, Tromp N, Nehal K, Jansen J, et al. Feasibility and challenges in sustaining a community based surveillance system in Post-Ebola Sierra Leone. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2021;26(SUPPL 1):117–8. 91. 91.Carias C, Adhikari BB, Ravat F, Meltzer MI, Marston BJ. Resources needed for US CDC’s support to the response to post-epidemic clusters of Ebola in West Africa, 2016. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2018;7(1):113. 92. 92.Ananthakrishnan A, Luz ACG, Kc S, Ong L, Oh C, Isaranuwatchai W, et al. How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies? Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022;20(1):124. 93. 93.McCaul M, Tovey D, Young T, Welch V, Dewidar O, Goetghebeur M, et al. Resources supporting trustworthy, rapid and equitable evidence synthesis and guideline development: results from the COVID-19 evidence network to support decision-making (COVID-END). J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;151:88–95. 94. 94.Mosam A, Goldstein S, Erzse A, Tugendhaft A, Hofman K. Building trust during COVID 19: Value-driven and ethical priority-setting. S Afr Med J. 2020;110(6):443–4. 95. 95.Kapiriri L, Essue B, Bwire G, Nouvet E, Kiwanuka S, Sengooba F, et al. A framework to support the integration of priority setting in the preparedness, alert, control and evaluation stages of a disease pandemic. Glob Public Health. 2022;17(8):1479–91. 96. 96.Gerard J, Kibaara T, Blom IM, Falconer J, Mohammed S, Kadri-Alabi Z, et al. Climate-Sensitive Health Outcomes in Kenya: A Scoping Review of Environmental Exposures and Health Outcomes Research, 2000 – 2023. 2024. 97. 97.Hollingworth S, Fenny AP, Yu S-Y, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K. Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2021;19(1). 98. 98.Chola LB, Edwine; Mbau, Rahab; Baker, Pete. iDSI Guide and Template for Developing a National Framework for Health Technology Assessment. Center for Global Development; 2023. 99. 99.WHO Director-General declares mpox outbreak a public health emergency of international concern [press release]. 14/08/2024 2024. 100.100.Redman-White CJ, Loosli K, Qarkaxhija V, Lee TN, Mboowa G, Wee BA, et al. A Digital One Health framework to integrate data for public health decision-making. IJID One Health. 2023;1. 101.101.FAO., UNEP., WHO., WOAH. One. Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026: working together for the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment. Rome, Italy; 2022. 102.102.Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016;3(1):160018. 103.103.Tan Y-R, Agrawal A, Matsoso MP, Katz R, Davis SLM, Winkler AS, et al. A call for citizen science in pandemic preparedness and response: beyond data collection. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(6):e009389. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjcvNi9lMDA5Mzg5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMjMvMjAyNC4wOS4yMC4yNDMxNDA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 104.104.Davis S, Were N, Imalingat T. DIGITAL HEALTH RIGHTS: INITIAL ANALYSIS. Graduate Institute Geneva; 2021. 105.105.Trust W. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Impacts on Human Health: A Data Science Framework. 2024. 106.106.Carlson CJ, Carleton TA, Odoulami RC, Trisos CH. The historical fingerprint and future impact of climate change on childhood malaria in Africa. 2023. 107.107.1. Press CU Change IPoC. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. In: Press CU, editor. Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2014. p. 867-952. 108.108.World Health O. Economic evaluation & analysis. 2024. 109.109.Koon AD, Windmeyer L, Bigdeli M, Charles J, El Jardali F, Uneke J, et al. A scoping review of the uses and institutionalisation of knowledge for health policy in low- and middle-income countries. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2020;18(1):7. 110.110.NHS England. Data Sets [Available from: [https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-sets](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-sets). 111.111.Mooney SJ, Garber MD. Sampling and Sampling Frames in Big Data Epidemiology. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2019;6(1):14–22.