Investigator(s)
| WHO Technical Officer |
Masaya Kato WHO SEARO WHE HIM Masaya Kato 
|
| Principal Investigator |
Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell
|
| Co-Investigator(s) |
Clare Strachan Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne Clare Strachan
|
| Co-Investigator(s) |
Daniel Strachan Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne Daniel Strachan
|
| Co-Investigator(s) |
Florian Vogt The Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Florian Vogt
|
| Co-Investigator(s) |
Yuka Jinnai WHO SEARO WHE HIM Yuka Jinnai
|
Title(s) and abstract
| Scientific title | COVID-19 evaluation in Southeast Asian Region |
| Public title | COVID-19 evaluation in Southeast Asian Region |
| Background | Strengthening health emergency preparedness in the WHO South-East Asia Region (WHO SEAR) was a growing concern even before COVID-19, highlighted in the Delhi Declaration - Emergency Preparedness in the South-East Asia Region during the 2019 WHO Regional Committee session. The pandemic exposed the inadequacies in the region's preparedness and the evolving demands for health security systems. Surveillance and contact tracing are crucial tools for disease outbreaks. During the COVID-19 crisis, contact tracing efforts overwhelmed resources. Digital technologies emerged as vital for scaling up and improving timeliness in contact tracing and data utility for decision-making. Existing evaluations in WHO SEAR Member States mainly touch on pandemic response pillars, with limited focus on surveillance and contact tracing. Some early regional consultations concentrated on health system strengthening and health security, while specific evaluations of surveillance and contact tracing have been fragmented. No comprehensive national or regional evaluation of surveillance and contact tracing for COVID-19 in WHO SEAR has occurred. Such an evaluation would consolidate lessons to strengthen policies. |
| Objectives | This evaluation aims to explore how information needs for public health decision-making evolved over the pandemic phases, how the surveillance and contact tracing (CT) systems performed to respond to meet the evolving needs of the pandemic response, and how related systems can be further strengthened to cope with future pandemics and epidemics, including through the use of associated digital technologies. The objectives are: • Objective 1: To describe varied country systems and experiences for COVID-19 surveillance and CT across SEAR. This includes reviewing performance against programmatic objectives, the relevance of WHO’s technical contribution, and to identify lessons learned to inform future strengthening of surveillance and CT for epidemic and pandemic-prone diseases. • Objective 2: To review application and utility of digital technology for COVID-19 surveillance and CT across SEAR. This includes the assessment of benefits, challenges and implications, and to identify lessons learned to inform optimization of digital technology application for surveillance and CT including potential roles of WHO. |
| Study Methods | The evaluation employs a mixed methods triangulation design, simultaneously conducting various methodological components and comparing their findings to inform the overall evaluation. This approach integrates information from three case study countries and the broader region to identify common themes. The three case study countries selected are Indonesia, Thailand, and Nepal, chosen based on their diverse COVID-19 epidemic contexts in 2020 when surveillance and contact tracing systems were initiated. These countries also introduced or expanded digital technologies for COVID-19 surveillance and contact tracing during the pandemic, offering a variety of experiences. Additionally, they have published relevant reports and have decentralized government models for meaningful comparisons. The data collection methods include literature reviews and in-depth qualitative research and quantitative evaluation. Literature reviews will cover all SEARO Member States. These reviews will inform the development of country-specific epidemic phases. The qualitative component involves semi-structured key informant interviews in the three case study countries, targeting senior public health decision makers, technical staff leading surveillance and contact tracing, key development partners, and relevant focal points. In each country, 13 key informant interviews will be conducted at the national and sub-national levels, including one sub-national area chosen for its relevance and logistical feasibility. Online interviews may precede in-country visits to enhance preparation and understanding. Quantitative data collection aims to complement findings from the literature review and qualitative research for all SEARO Member States. |
| Expected outcomes and use of results | The draft evaluation report will be circulated to key stakeholders, who will be invited to offer written feedback and if desired, attend a virtual meeting with the project team to discuss the preliminary findings presented in the draft evaluation report and provide comments on further actions and engagements required to finalise the evaluation. This will inform future guidance on surveillance and contact tracing for respiratory and other pathogens. |
| Keywords | Health emergency preparedness, WHO South-East Asia Region, COVID-19 response, Surveillance systems, Contact tracing, Digital technologies, Health security systems, Mixed methods evaluation, Lessons learned |
Research Details
| Student research | No |
| Start Date | 01-Jul-2023 |
| End Date | 15-Nov-2023 |
| Key Implementing Institution | Nossal Institute for Global Health, the University of Melbourne |
| Multi-country research | Yes |
| Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal | |
| Nationwide research | Yes, with randomly selected geographical areas |
| Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia | |
| Research Domain(s) | Health Systems Research, Communicable Disease Research |
| Research field(s) | COVID-19 |
| Involves human subjects | Yes |
| Qualitative Study | |
| Data Collection | Primary data |
| Proposal reviewed by other Committee | Under Review |