Since 2013, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has offered the Public Health Emergency Management Fellowship to health professionals from around the world. The goal of this program is to build an international workforce to establish public health emergency management programs and operations centers in participating countries. In March 2021, all 141 graduates of the fellowship program were invited to complete a web survey designed to examine their job roles and functions, assess their contributions to their country's COVID-19 response, and identify needs for technical assistance to strengthen national preparedness and response systems. Of 141 fellows, 89 successfully completed the survey. Findings showed that fellowship graduates served key roles in COVID-19 response in many countries, used skills they gained from the fellowship, and desired continuing engagement between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and fellowship alumni to strengthen the community of practice for international public health emergency management.

OBJECTIVE: To capture organizational level information on the current state of public health emergency response leadership training. DESIGN: A web-based questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: This multitiered assessment of health departments included two distinct respondent groups: (1) Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement recipients (n = 34) and (2) local health departments (LHDs) (n = 169) representative of different agency sizes and populations served. RESULTS: Overall, PHEP and LHD respondents expressed a clear preference for participatory learning with practical drills/exercises and participatory workshops as the preferred training delivery modes. Compared with technical and role-specific training, leadership training was less available. For both PHEP and LHD respondents, staff availability for training is most notably limited due to lack of time. For PHEP respondents, a common factor limiting agency ability to offer training is lack of mentors/instructors, whereas for LHD respondents, it is limited funding. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should focus on increasing accessibility and the continued development of rigorous and effective training based on practical experience in all aspects of multitiered public health emergency response leadership.

During emergency responses, public health leaders frequently serve in incident management roles that differ from their routine job functions. Leaders' familiarity with incident management principles and functions can influence response outcomes. Therefore, training and exercises in incident management are often required for public health leaders. To describe existing methods of incident management training and exercises in the literature, we queried 6 English language databases and found 786 relevant articles. Five themes emerged: (1) experiential learning as an established approach to foster engaging and interactive learning environments and optimize training design; (2) technology-aided decision support tools are increasingly common for crisis decision-making; (3) integration of leadership training in the education continuum is needed for developing public health response leaders; (4) equal emphasis on competency and character is needed for developing capable and adaptable leaders; and (5) consistent evaluation methodologies and metrics are needed to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions.These findings offer important strategic and practical considerations for improving the design and delivery of educational interventions to develop public health emergency response leaders. This review and ongoing real-world events could facilitate further exploration of current practices, emerging trends, and challenges for continuous improvements in developing public health emergency response leaders.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the current training environment for developing public health emergency response leaders and highlight facilitators and barriers in accessing targeted training. DESIGN: We designed 4 focus groups to gather organizational perspectives on public health emergency response leadership development. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to synthesize key themes. SETTING: Focus groups were convened at the 2019 Preparedness Summit (March 27-28) in St Louis, Missouri. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three public health professionals from 9 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement award recipient jurisdictions and 12 local health departments participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined the current availability, relevance, specificity, and utility of educational content and delivery modalities. Facilitators and barriers were identified as opportunities to improve training access. RESULTS: Generic emergency management training is considered important and widely available but with limited application in public health practice. Existing leadership training opportunities in public health emergency response are limited and not widely known. While organizational support and accessible training facilitate participation, resource constraints (ie, funding, time, and staff) exist as key barriers. In addition, frequent staff turnover and attrition that result in loss of institutional knowledge likely hinder effective public health emergency responses. CONCLUSION: Effective public health emergency response depends on capable leaders not only well versed in specialized technical disciplines and practices but also familiar with-or preferably fluent in-emergency management principles and functions. This study demonstrated that well-aimed training strategies and organizational planning are essential in developing public health emergency response leaders. Specifically, leadership development may accrue considerable benefit from a standardized training curriculum. In addition, scalable training programs developed through public, private, and academic partnerships may lessen resource demands on individual organizations to facilitate training access. Finally, training practicums (eg, mentoring, shadowing) may provide opportunities to facilitate active learning and preserve institutional knowledge through leadership transitions.

We examined Zika-related inquiries to CDC-INFO, the national contact center for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to identify potential communication gaps. The most frequently asked questions related to travel or geographic location of Zika (42% of all inquiries), information about laboratory testing (13%), or acquiring a Zika test (11%).

OBJECTIVES: The spread of Zika virus throughout Latin America and parts of the United States in 2016 and 2017 presented a challenge to public health communicators. The objective of our study was to describe emergency risk communication practices during the 2016-2017 Zika outbreak to inform future infectious disease communication efforts. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 public health policy makers and practitioners, 10 public information officers, and 5 vector-control officials from May through August 2017. RESULTS: Within the public health macro-environment, extended outbreak timeframe, government trust, US residence status, and economic insecurity set the backdrop for Zika communication efforts. Limited resources, staffing, and partnerships negatively affected public health structural capacity for communication efforts. Public health communicators and practitioners used a range of processes and practices to engage in education and outreach, including fieldwork, community meetings, and contact with health care providers. Overall, public health agencies' primary goals were to prevent Zika infection, reduce transmission, and prevent adverse birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from this disease response included understanding the macro-environment, developing partnerships across agencies and the community, and valuing diverse message platforms. These lessons can be used to improve communication approaches for health officials at the local, state, and federal levels during future infectious disease outbreaks.

Aerial spraying of products to kill larvae or adult mosquitoes is a public health measure used to control vector-borne diseases. In some outbreaks, the intervention has evoked controversy and community resistance. This study evaluated how local opinion leaders in US localities affected by Zika think about community engagement in public health policies for outbreak response. In December 2017 through March 2018, 4 focus groups were convened in Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Miami, FL, and Brooklyn, NY. They discussed a hypothetical scenario that featured vector control by aerial spraying. Participants (N = 20) more readily accepted this vector control method under 4 conditions: They were informed of alternatives, benefits, and risks for human health and the environment. Public health claims were backed by objective evidence and an authority figure genuinely working in the community's interests. They received timely notice about how to mitigate toxin exposure. And, aerial spraying helped to protect vulnerable individuals. The community engagement requirements of the local opinion leaders resonate with core principles of recent public health ethics frameworks: namely, personal autonomy, transparency, reasonableness, and solidarity. Participants foresaw problems with community consent in an era of growing social media use and mistrust in governmental and scientific authority. They also debated whether health authorities should use moral-based arguments, in addition to science-based ones, to communicate aerial spraying's risks and benefits.

Establishing a functional incident management system (IMS) is important in the management of public health emergencies. In response to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in West Africa, CDC established the Emergency Management Development Team (EMDT) to coordinate technical assistance for developing emergency management capacity in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. EMDT staff, deployed staff, and partners supported each country to develop response goals and objectives, identify gaps in response capabilities, and determine strategies for coordinating response activities. To monitor key programmatic milestones and assess changes in emergency management and response capacities over time, EMDT implemented three data collection methods in country: coordination calls, weekly written situation reports, and an emergency management dashboard tool. On the basis of the information collected, EMDT observed improvements in emergency management capacity over time in all three countries. The collaborations in each country yielded IMS structures that streamlined response and laid the foundation for long-term emergency management programs.The activities summarized in this report would not have been possible without collaboration with many U.S and international partners (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/partners.html).

Disaster epidemiology (i.e., applied epidemiology in disaster settings) presents a source of reliable and actionable information for decision-makers and stakeholders in the disaster management cycle. However, epidemiological methods have yet to be routinely integrated into disaster response and fully communicated to response leaders. We present a framework consisting of rapid needs assessments, health surveillance, tracking and registries, and epidemiological investigations, including risk factor and health outcome studies and evaluation of interventions, which can be practiced throughout the cycle. Applying each method can result in actionable information for planners and decision-makers responsible for preparedness, response, and recovery. Disaster epidemiology, once integrated into the disaster management cycle, can provide the evidence base to inform and enhance response capability within the public health infrastructure.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the injuries and illnesses treated by the American Red Cross (Red Cross) during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike disaster relief operations reported on a new Aggregate Morbidity Report Form. METHODS: From August 28 to October 18, 2008, 119 Red Cross field service locations in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas addressed the healthcare needs of people affected by the hurricanes. From these locations, individual client visit data were retrospectively collated per site onto new 24-hour Aggregate Morbidity Report Forms. RESULTS: A total of 3863 clients were treated. Of the clients, 48% were girls and women and 44% were boys and men; 61% were 19 to 64 years old. Ninety-eight percent of the visits occurred in shelters. The reasons for half of the visits were acute illness and symptoms (eg, pain) and 16% were for routine follow-up care. The majority (65%) of the 2516 visits required treatment at a field location, although 34%, or 1296 visits, required a referral, including 543 healthcare facility transfers. CONCLUSIONS: During the hurricanes, a substantial number of displaced evacuees sought care for acute and routine healthcare needs. The capacity of the Red Cross to address the immediate and ongoing health needs of sheltered clients for an extended period of time is a critical resource for local public health agencies, which are often overwhelmed during a disaster. This article highlights the important role that this humanitarian organization fills, to decrease surge to local healthcare systems and to monitor health effects following a disaster. The Aggregate Morbidity Report Form has the potential to assist greatly in this role, and thus its utility for real-time reporting should be evaluated further.