Mass gatherings have been implicated in higher rates of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and many sporting events have been restricted or canceled to limit disease spread (1). Based on current CDC COVID-19 mitigation recommendations related to events and gatherings (2), Major League Baseball (MLB) developed new health and safety protocols before the July 24 start of the 2020 season. In addition, MLB made the decision that games would be played without spectators. Before a three-game series between teams A and B, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health was notified of a team A player with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; the player was isolated as recommended (2). During the series and the week after, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was diagnosed among 19 additional team A players and staff members and one team B staff member. Throughout their potentially infectious periods, some asymptomatic team A players and coaches, who subsequently received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, engaged in on-field play with teams B and C. No on-field team B or team C players or staff members subsequently received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Certain MLB health and safety protocols, which include frequent diagnostic testing for rapid case identification, isolation of persons with positive test results, quarantine for close contacts, mask wearing, and social distancing, might have limited COVID-19 transmission between teams.

OBJECTIVES: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness. METHODS: We reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed. RESULTS: We identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies. CONCLUSIONS: PERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;page 1 of 13).

We provide an overview of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded public health preparedness and response (PHPR) research and training initiative to improve public health practice. Our objectives were to accelerate the translation, dissemination, and implementation (TDI) of promising PHPR evidence-based tools and trainings developed by the Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRC) or the Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLC) between 2008 and 2015. Nine competitive awards were made to seven academic centers to achieve predetermined TDI objectives. The outputs attained by the initiative included: user-friendly online repositories of PERRC and PERLC tools and trainings; training courses that addressed topics; a community resilience manual to synthesize, translate, and implement evidence-based programs; and Web applications that supported legal preparedness, exercise evaluation, and immunization education. The evaluation identified several best practices and potential barriers to implementation. As illustrated by the work in this supplement, the broader awareness and implementation of PERRC preparedness products and PERLC trainings and the continued evaluation of their impact could enhance the PHPR capacity and capability of the nation, which could lead to improved health security. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 27, 2018: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304709).

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) identify available training programs for emergency response personnel and public health professionals on addressing the needs of Deaf and hard of hearing individuals and older adults, (2) identify strategies to improve these training programs, and (3) identify gaps in available training programs and make recommendations for addressing these gaps. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant training programs and identify lessons learned. Interviews were conducted by telephone or email with key informants who were subject matter experts who worked with Deaf and hard of hearing persons (n=11) and older adults (n=11). RESULTS: From the literature, 11 training programs targeting public health professionals and emergency response personnel serving Deaf and hard of hearing individuals (n=7) and older adults (n=4) were identified. The 4 training programs focused on older adults had corresponding evaluations published in the literature. Three (43%) of the 7 training programs focused on Deaf and hard of hearing persons included individuals from the affected communities in the development and implementation of the training. Key informant interviews identified common recommendations for improving training programs: (1) training should involve collaboration across different emergency, state, federal, and advocacy agencies; (2) training should involve members of affected communities; (3) training should be more widely accessible and affordable; and (4) training should teach response personnel varied communication techniques relevant to the Deaf and hard of hearing and older adult communities. CONCLUSIONS: Developing effective, accessible, and affordable training programs for emergency response personnel working with Deaf and hard of hearing persons, some of whom belong to the older adult population, will require a collaborative effort among emergency response agencies, public health organizations, and members of the affected communities. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;page 1 of 9).

In 2008, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) prepared a report identifying knowledge gaps in public health systems preparedness and emergency response and recommending near-term priority research areas. In accordance with the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act mandating new public health systems research for preparedness and emergency response, CDC provided competitive awards establishing nine Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) in accredited U.S. schools of public health. The PERRCs conducted research in four IOM-recommended priority areas: (1) enhancing the usefulness of public health preparedness and response (PHPR) training, (2) creating and maintaining sustainable preparedness and response systems, (3) improving PHPR communications, and (4) identifying evaluation criteria and metrics to improve PHPR for all hazards. The PERRCs worked closely with state and local public health, community partners, and advisory committees to produce practice-relevant research findings. PERRC research has generated more than 130 peer-reviewed publications and nearly 80 practice and policy tools and recommendations with the potential to significantly enhance our nation's PHPR to all hazards and that highlight the need for further improvements in public health systems.