1
THE ROLE OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN GLOBAL
PANDEMIC RESPONSE
1. WHO's Pandemic Preparedness Strategies
I. Early warning systems
The early warning systems thereby initiated by the WHO are one of the most critical strategies in
preventing the breakout of pandemics across the world. These systems that are supposed to help
identify and let the global community know potential epidemics have undergone revolutionary
changes over the past decades. Another example of WHO‟s enhanced action is the Global
Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) initiated in 2000 as the part of efforts towards
prompt identification and response to emerging threats to public health (Mackenzie et al. , 2014).
But, the efficiency of these systems has been a matter of concern and controversy, especially the
recent worldwide healthcare threats. It was said that despite highly developed mechanisms of
monitoring, WHO did not give timely signals at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak
(Gostin & Friedman, 2020). Opponents argue that the political realities and member states‟
readiness to contribute data limit the organization‟s capacities to act (Wenham, 2021). Which in
the light of International Health Regulations (IHR) amended in 2005 in which countries are
required to report about the threats of potential public health emergency of international concern,
it was noted that it was not strictly followed (Habibi et al. , 2020). In order for the WHO to be
able to address these challenges and improve the working of early warning systems, the
organization has to promote more openness, as well as standardize procedures of data sharing,
use more IT solutions including artificial intelligence and big data. In this respect, the WHO can
therefore more effectively achieve its mission of safeguarding the world‟s health and also
preventing the cross-border transmission of diseases when it bolsters its early warning capacities.
However, WHO‟s impact does not end with early warning systems, but it thus includes; disease
surveillance networks, emergency response solutions, and also capacity building. The
organization‟s disease surveillance networks thereby help to monitor disease outbreaks in the
community so that necessary actions can hence be taken promptly. These guidelines help in
management of outbreaks in such a way that the effects on the people are reduced though it
opposes one‟s view of partial quarantines. The activities of capacity-building seek to assert the
ability and tools to address the PHEs in the member states. Another important component of
WHO‟s response to pandemic diseases is hence the coordination of international actions. These
factors include; information-sharing platforms, financial resources, and also cross-border
cooperation arrangements as some of the critical factors in a collective approach to the problem.
There is hence need to recognize the diplomatic engagements that help shape and sustain such
partnerships for fruitful collaborations; for all countries to be able to engage in and during global
health diplomacy.
2
II. Disease surveillance networks
Disease surveillance networks as a system of programs are most crucial for the identification of
key efficiencies of the WHO in the scope of global health threats response. These networks
include; national health agencies, research institutions, and international organizations that are
involved in the gathering, analyzing, and also reporting of disease patterns and occurrence. The
WHO‟s GISRS that has been in existence for over half a century affirms the need for constant
surveillance efforts (Hay & McCauley, 2018). But such networks may be ineffective due to the
difference in investigative capabilities of countries from the developed and developing world.
The limited laboratory resources, human capacity, and writing protocols considerably hampers
global health surveillance in most developing countries (Mboera et al. , 2014). The critics‟
reasoning is that not only does this inequality compromise the WHO‟s capacity to identify and
tackle the new threats, but it also contributes to global health disparities (Fidler, 2020). To meet
these challenges, the WHO has started the programs that enhance the capacities of national
surveillance, for instance, the IDSR strategy that is carried out in the African region (Fall et al. ,
2019). These measures are intended to promote the efficiency of the given countries in the matter
of early detection, reporting, and subsequent response to the emergence of infectious diseases.
Still, continuation of donor support and thus political will thereby forms the key success factors
of such initiatives. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 crisis has thus revealed the weakness of the
surveillance systems for new virus detection and also their integration with other disciplines.
These activities are not limited to just one aspect of early warning systems but even include
disease surveillance systems, emergency response mechanisms, and capacity enhancement
programs. Surveillance systems for diseases entail networks in the organization to monitor the
diseases on a constant basis hence early action can always be taken. This involves assessment
and planning for how diseases‟ outbreaks will be handled; hence people‟s health risks are well
handled. The capacity-building interventions agenda seeks to empower the member states with
the requisite competency to handle public health crisis well. The initiatives in sharing
information, funds as well as having a common model of operating collaboratively across
borders are hence critical to fighting the battle together. It is the responsibility of global health
diplomacy to bring such collaborations to negotiations and guarantee that every country can and
will have access to the global health initiatives no matter the financial capability.
III. Emergency response protocols
The decision-making frameworks are an integral feature of the WHO‟s emergency response and
ensure that the process running a therapeutic pandemic-ridden globe runs systematically and
strategically. Described in the ERF, these procedures state organizational functions and duties
during PHEs (World Health Organization, 2017). At the core of these protocols is the
designation of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), a process that is
supposed to mobilize an international response and support. However, the efficiency of such
protocols has been thus challenged, specifically in relation to the WHO‟s handling of recent
emergent diseases. The organization raised its concerns when COVID-19 was already spreading
irrespectively of borders it can therefore be concluded that the delayed declaration of COVID-19
3
as a PHEIC was catastrophic in the fight against the virus‟s early containment thus leading to its
ineffectiveness in the containment of the virus which is currently spreading across the globe
(Maxmen, 2021). Critics of the WHO, however, argue that the organization‟s leadership must act
fast while still considering the economic and social implications of a declaration of PHEIC,
which usually results in complicated evaluations (Kamradt-Scott, 2016). The necessity of
following the crucial protocols is mentioned next to the fact of the WHO‟s working with member
states and its, therefore, dependence on funding and cooperation, which tends to be political in
the context of health threats. Being an emergency organization, WHO is still faced with some of
these challenges and to make its emergency response more effective it has to: Simplify and speed
up decision making mechanisms; Increase transparency; Get more stability and more Donor
independent funds. Further, the organization should enhance its capacity to send quick response
groups and necessities to the influenced regions to show signs of improvement reaction in future
human health risks. The agency‟s programs range from; merely early warning systems to
primary disease surveillance and also detection, emergency preparedness, as well as training.
Disease surveillance networks in the organization allow perpetual assessment of diseases hence
early intervention. Risk containment measures prevent the spread of disease and illness thus
reducing effects on the population by a acceptable level. The commitments under the capacity-
building framework efforts are thus central to strengthening the member states‟ preparedness and
other requirements to effectively respond to PHEs. Another crucial element in the pandemic
response by WHO; is the synchronization of intergovernmental initiatives in the sphere of
medicine. There is therefore a need to integrate the information sharing mechanisms, resource
allocation and frame work on cross border collaboration to ensure that the world is protected
from diseases. There is hence a significant role in managing these relations in global health
diplomacy that thus provides equal access to all the countries thereby including those with
limited funds, to engage in and also benefit from global health processes.
IV. Capacity building initiatives
Capacity building endeavors are thus a central component of WHO‟s framework for
strengthening health systems for pandemic prevention and control. These endeavors thereby seek
to strengthen the capacity of member states, especially low-middle income countries to address
public health threats efficiently. According to the WHO‟s Health Systems Strengthening (HSS)
framework, the global healthcare initiatives require sound and sustainable infrastructure for
delivering healthcare, availing competent personnel, and befitting governing systems (Kieny et
al. , 2017). However, capacity building efforts in implementing initiatives face numerous hitches.
The issues that slow the progress includes: Scarce resources, volatile politics, and other health
priorities in many nations, among others. Some of the researchers have noted that despite the
concerted efforts to build capacities for allied improvements, the world remains significantly
insecure for many; evidence by the disruptive COVID-19 that pandemic has had on the global
health system depending on the continent (Ravi et al. , 2019). Those who support the WHO‟s
approach claim that at the heart of building capacity is a process that takes time and that
continues to demand international and national financial funds. The Joint External Evaluation
4
(JEE) process that has been adopted as a part of the International Health Regulations (2005) is
the framework towards improving the capacities of the National Health system (Bell et al. ,
2017). However, the implementation of such assessments into concrete changes is a rather
challenging goal for many nations. Thus, to increase the impact of capacity building
interventions, the WHO needs strategic partnerships, the integration of its approaches with
existing systems and protocols, and technological advancement. Thus, increasing national and
regional levels of capacity, the WHO can help to form a more stable and adequately equipped
world health system for the subsequent pandemics. While this approach bears the outcome of
thus boosting one country readiness, it has thereby the additional effect of strengthening the
global health security as a whole. In light of continuing and also new threats to health, capacity-
building efforts therefore remain an absolute priority for the international community as a means
of thus lessening the burden of infectious diseases as well as protecting the global health of the
population in the future.
2. Coordination of International Health Efforts
I. Information sharing mechanisms
The WHO is in charge of management of vital mechanisms of information sharing which are
most appropriate in combating a global pandemic. It therefore acts as a regional clearing house
for compiling, processing and also distribution of vital health information and knowledge in and
also across nations. This function can be explained by the case of the Global Outbreak Alert and
Response Network (GOARN) that helps to share information among the partners in the technical
level across the globe instantly (Olu et al. , 2016). Nevertheless, modern severe pandemics such
as COVID-19 unveiled certain loopholes in the sharing of timely information. In the early stages
of the epidemic, some countries were blamed for the lack of information sharing, thus
questioning the World Health Organization‟s capacity to deliver timely and reliable statistics
(Wenham et al. , 2021). The funding system weakens the WHO because critics state that relying
on member state‟s voluntary cooperation undermines its ability to guarantee regular information
provision (Eccleston-Turner & Kamradt-Scott, 2019). Nevertheless, the WHO has progressed in
the creation of devices such as the Event Information Site (EIS) and the Epidemic Intelligence
from Open Sources (EIOS) improving the surveillance systems globally (Briand et al. , 2018).
To remove those hurdles, the WHO needs to enhance diplomacy, gain the confidence of member
countries and enhance data collection and analytical tools for discovering new things.
Appointing for better and stricter rules and regulation of international sharing of information in
times of health crises is important. With regards to its communication systems, the WHO can go
further in order to better fit the needs of a world in crisis during future pandemics. Thus the
WHO‟s role as the orchestrator of the information-sharing instruments for the health sector is
thereby critical for affording global health security. Further improvement in its capacity to meet
population(s) safeguards in the face of epidemics or any other form of health catastrophes can
also be improved if the WHO keeps on advancing in innovations while at the same time
promoting inter-country cooperation.
5
II. Resource allocation and distribution
Due to the fact that WHO has massive influence in the redistribution of fund and products to
different countries, its role is critical in the management of resource management with the
provision a fair means to access the necessities. This function was especially prominent during
the COVID-19 pandemic when the WHO managed to spearhead endeavors including the
COVID-19 Supply Chain System and the COVAX Facility for vaccines (World Health
Organization, 2021). Still it has been possible to hence question the efficiency of resource
utilization. Opponents reasoned that, still, there was inequality in resource distribution, WHO
coordinated it but the high-income countries got the lion‟s share of vaccines and medical
equipment (Bump et al. , 2021). This underscored the dilemmas of WHO implementing equitable
distribution against the sovereign states‟ and market powers‟ initiatives. Skepticism has been the
nature of WHO‟s implementing role, yet the use argues that resource coordination averted
significantly worse territorial disparities and gave essential aid to low-income countries
(Ghebreyesus, 2021). The Organization regarding the treaty was demonstrated through the
Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP) for COVID-19 through the expansion of
funds/monies, and effective cooperation in multilateral partnerships. However, problems
occurred when attempting to execute on the plan, namely in reconciling the needs of the globe
with the needs of the nation-state. Increase its operational capacity in the provision of resources
for effective delivery of programs, WHO must improve relations with international
organizations, non-Governmental organizations and the private sector. Thus, it is important to
push for the ratification of more legally binding international instruments thereby on the
distribution of resources in situations of public health crises. Moreover, more attention should be
paid to strengthening the supply chain on thus the global level of key medical products.
Strengthening resource coordination capacity will increase WHO‟s capacity to ensure fair
distribution of resources in the succeeding pandemics. This entails; a reform of patriarchy within
health systems as well as improving ways for prompt and also equitable delivery of vaccines,
treatment, and hence other medical essentials across the globe. Thus, furthering these initiatives,
the WHO may therefore enhance global health safety as well as reduce the effects of health
crises on vulnerable populations worldwide.
III. Cross-border collaboration frameworks
The WHO hence has the function of maintaining and furthering international cooperation that is
vital when it comes to organizing the response to pandemics on the international level. It thereby
offers; guides and forums that facilitate countries to work together to solve health problems that
affect more than one country. In line with this effort is the International Health Regulations
(2005), which lays out the framework of international cooperation in handling public health
threats (Gostin & Katz, 2016). However, these frameworks have faced considerable difficulties
putting into practice as was seen during the COVID-19 outbreak. At first, most of the countries
practiced the strategies of individualism in border governing and resource utilization, which
showed the loopholes in the international cooperation (Habibi et al. , 2020). So, some critics
have alleged that the WHO does not possess the power to compel nations to implement their
6
Guideline, which has resulted in the piecemeal collection of approaches to TI all around the
world (Fidler, 2020). Still, it has been noted that the WHO has achieved great results in
promoting regional cooperation through, for example, GOARN and its offices in different
regions (Olu et al. , 2016). They have supported collaborative studies on disease outbreak,
exchange of information, as well as other actions in hunting for disease causes. For the WHO to
enhance international cooperation, it needs to resolve the following conflict: sovereignty or
globalization or sovereignty vs. globalization. This entails calling for better international legal
structures, improving the capacity of diplomacy, and stimulating positive relationships between
member countries. Another strategy is to thus build up regional capability and also connections
to facilitate local actions that can be coordinated at global levels when necessary. By enhancing
the organization‟s cross-border collaboration structures; the WHO can thereby promote better
synchrony and efficiency in cooperating with the rest of the world when it comes to pandemics.
This thus covers executive compliance with recommended guidelines and also dissemination of
vital data at the onset of health crises. The world thus needs such initiatives to stem the
increasing cases of cross-border diseases and hence alleviate the effects of subsequent pandemics
on global health as well as the global economy.
IV. Global health diplomacy
Thus global health diplomacy is hereby an important component of the WHO‟s work in
managing interstate cooperation in responding to pandemics. Consists of; orchestrating
partnerships for the containment and prevention of diseases and coordination of relationships in
conflicts for their resolution and in the promotion of global health goals. More than being an
implementing agency, the WHO the gathers governments, non-governmental organizations, and
international intercessors‟ to deal with intricate health issues (Kickbusch et al. , 2021). On the
one hand, global health diplomacy performance of the organization has been applauded and on
the other, questioned. The negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco control show
the WHO‟s capacity to broker treaty –making in the international health domain. However, the
politicization of the COVID-19 response in terms of the origin of the virus and fair distribution
of vaccine has brought out the uphill task of how to deal with geopolitics to avoid a
confrontation (Gostin et al. , 2021). Some people have a few complaints on decision-making
processes of the WHO and claim that slow or watered-down decisions are possible due to
consensus orientation (Wenham, 2021). However, supporters stress that the WHO‟s mandate is
different, namely, to facilitate discussion and collaboration in contentious politic environments.
For global health diplomacy to become efficient and also more effective at the WHO; it has to
thereby improve on certain aspects namely; political analysis and a thus strategic
communication. This hence includes; the formulation of sound strategies on how to effectively
deal with non-state actors, timely provision of information and also enhanced relations with
regional political organs. It is therefore necessary to focus on the education and training of
professional health diplomats with the understanding of the health politics as well as
international relations field intersection. In this way, global health diplomacy
capabilities/processes embraced by the WHO can produce greater impact oriented to elaborate
7
more competent and standardized patterns as the responses to the future health threats. These are;
lobbying for the necessary health resources to be allocated fairly and efficiently, providing
evidence based policies and rallying the world to tackle new threats to health. Thereby,
improving the state of global health diplomacy thus serves the improvement of WHO‟s
leadership in shaping global health security and hence equality on the global level.
3. Research and Scientific Guidance
I. Virus identification and characterization
The WHO is thereby involved in bringing together international activities for virus identification
and also description during emergencies. This function is thus crucial in determining; the
characteristics of emerging diseases, their risks, as well as to counter them. The organization‟s
collaborating centers and reference laboratories create an essential framework for pathogen
identification and analysis (Perkins et al. , 2019). However, the results have been described both
positively and negatively about the effectiveness of such efforts. The fast identification and
sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 virus showed the might of global scientific cooperation supported
by the WHO (Wu et al. , 2020). On the other hand, discussions about the roots of COVID-19
transparency showed procedural difficulties in examining confusing situations that were sensitive
for the political aspect (Maxmen, 2021). (Gostin et al. , 2021) noted that the structure of WHO as
a specialized agency of the United Nations, which operates on the financial and political support
of its member states including in access and information can make it slow and laced when
identifying and characterizing new pathogens. On the other hand, supporters assert that the
organization occupies a special place in the management of global scientific processes and note
that the organization has set fundamental methods for the identification and characterization of
viruses (Briand et al. , 2018). Apart from this, the WHO needs to enhance its capability by
mobilizing the expert team as soon as possible in investigating the cases, to boost global
laboratory cooperation during the outbreaks, and to support the global treaty on sharing of
pathogens and access. Furthermore, the organization should also ensure that is develops trust and
openness in the scientific processes in order to reduce the politicization of virus investigation
processes. This undertaking will be very productive for the WHO since it can enhance its
capability to identify a virus and characterize it, thus offer more efficient and factual information
to frame the way ahead during pandemics.
II. Vaccine development support
The WHO thus has a huge responsibility concerning the promotion of vaccination to enhance the
global response to epidemics and also pandemics including; working as a mobilizer, an enabler,
and a setter of norms in aspects of vaccine research, production, and also testing. There exists the
WHO R & D Blueprint for Action to Prevent Epidemics that can be used to fast-track vaccine
development for priority pathogens (World Health Organization, 2016). In the course of this
COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO‟s interventions in this regard came into the public limelight
through programs such as the ACT-Accelerator and its COVAX component. These were the
8
strategies to thereby guarantee adequate supplies of vaccines to cover the population worldwide.
But, proof of their effectiveness has been a little ambiguous. Various proponents explaining that
WHO coordination accelerated the timelines for the creation of vaccines and encouraged never-
before-seen cooperation (Lurie et al. , 2020). Skeptics highlight problems of equity and
Inequality on the vaccination front as well as in the distribution of vaccine developed out of these
efforts (Hotez et al. , 2021). For example, the WHO has also been accused of releasing vaccines‟
guidelines late and after efficiently adjusting to new scientific evidence (Mahase, 2021). To
increase support for the vaccines, the WHO should therefore bring additional strengths to better
improve the rates of evaluation and also approval of new technologies within the vaccines,
improve the coordination of the clinical trials in the global settings, and promote the changes in
the framework of the research and thus development of the vaccines. Participating with
governmental and non-governmental institutions; especially the private sector and academic
institutions while; keeping the organization independent with a clear focus on the world‟s health
is therefore vital. Here, the WHO can thus enhance its capabilities in order to ensure that
populations in different countries gain equitable and hence fast access to vaccines during
successive pandemics, strengthening the approaches to global health protection as well as
preparedness.
III. Treatment protocol recommendations
The WHO also has the mandate and also responsibility of designing and compiling and
spreading information on the best practice protocols in the treatment of such patients with a view
of; enhancing the standard care and improvement of patients‟ outcomes during such epidemics. It
thus combines; the developing scientific knowledge and also views on how to treat the new
diseases in an organization. As evidenced in the COVID-19 pandemic, the WG system of the
WHO has applied the “living guidelines” that helped update recommendations within weeks
depending on the new evidence of effectiveness. Still the outcomes of these efforts have thereby
been met with positive and negative feedbacks. Advocates maintain that WHO October
guidelines were helpful in directing the healthcare workers in an unprecedented pathogen and
compiled worldwide strategies (Røttingen et al. , 2021). Critics have pointed out that sometimes
the recommendation came out after other emerging facts in science or that the recommendation
was not comprehensive enough for low-resource settings (Cheng, et al. , 2020). These are issues
that make it difficult for WHO advocate for fast solutions in the fight against the pandemic
despite the main aim of helping patients recover (Mehta et al. , 2020). To increase the efficiency
of developing treatment therapies, WHO has to increase synthesis of evidence capacity in a
timely manner, boost cooperation with various types of specialists, and optimize methods of
updating guidelines. This process hence involves; the modification of recommendations with
respect to the kind of resources available as well as improving the communication of guidelines
to clients. Thus, by enhancing these capacities the WHO can therefore deliver more prompt and
culturally sensitive advice to clinicians across the world amid future epidemics, thus enhancing
patient outcomes and international health resilience.
9
IV. Data analysis and modeling
The WHO therefore serves a very important purpose in the field of data analysis and also
modeling for the purpose of; identifying the nature of our pandemics and thus making decisions
on various policies. By; collecting, analyzing and also sharing epidemic data from member
states, the organization thus plays the important role of helping understand epidemiological
patterns. Ten for example, the WHO situation reports and dashboards in the course of the
COVID-19 became a reliable guide to determining the advancement of the disease across the
globe (World Health Organization, 2020). However, the outcome of these sensitization efforts
can be questioned. Critics are saying that the WHO has not only contributed to the
epidemiological analysis but data modeling as well and that the information presented
represented useful projections in each uncertain phase of the HAC (Briand et al. , 2018). Critics,
however, have noticed distortions in data or delayed mentions from member states and how they
impacted the WHO‟s analyses (Pearce et al. , 2020). It has also been difficult for the organization
to reconcile data collected within countries of differing surveillance and reporting capabilities
(Glassman et al. , 2020). To facilitate greater focus on the analytics and modeling side, WHO
needs to strengthen its collaborations with academic institutions and IT companies for the
adoption of new analytical tools and for learning more about state-of-the-art big data and
machine learning. The organization should also pay attention to quality of data of the member
states and how well they have been standardized to improve on collection, analysis and reporting
of real time data, and should also work more on its ability to disseminate the complicated
statistical information in the best way possible to different member state audiences. Secondly,
the WHO should thus aim at improving the clarity and openness of the underlying assumptions
and methods used for modeling to regain public confidence in the outputs. When equipped with
better approaches and also skills in data analysis, the WHO is hence better placed to offer more
relevant information on which the world can base its pandemic reactions as well as policy
formulation.
4. Public Health Communication
I. Risk assessment dissemination
The WHO is once again critical in the dissemination of risk assessments in order to set up the
foundation to inform global public health action as well as to influence decision making at the
international and country levels. Providing evaluations of emergent health threats is made
possible through use data as well as epidemiological experts‟ data analyses. As has been
demonstrated globally since the outbreak of COVID-19, the risk assessment reports became vital
references for policymakers and health departments across the globe (World Health
Organization, 2020). However, the efficiency of these efforts has thus raised controversies. As
the WHO detractors rightly noted, its risk assessments gave the countries‟ early signals which
could help minimize the effects of the pandemic‟s onset (Briand et al, 2018). On the other hand,
critics found some lack of communicative effectiveness in kind of perceived cautiousness or
inconsistency in the organization‟s risk messages that may hurt trust and response preparation
10
(Wenham, 2021). The questionable decision of the WHO to state the probable transmission
sailed between tweeting and scientific accuracy (Maxmen, 2021). To improve risk assessments
shared by the WHO, its capacity to collect and process data in real-time must be strengthened,
along with strategies for explaining risks‟ levels of uncertainty. As for the second area,
intensifying the means of the identity check of new threats is vital. Furthermore, it is crucial to
adapt the risk communication to specific populations, the cultural factors influencing risk
perception and behavior, as it determines relevance and effectiveness of the messages (Glik,
2007). Hence, by optimizing the delivery process of risk assessment information, the WHO can
provide timely, accurate, and relevant information. This will ensure that global stakeholders are
well placed to address the future emergent health challenges hence improving the global health
security and preparedness.
II. Health guidelines and recommendations
It is thus essential for the WHO to have a central position in establishing and also distributing
health guidelines and hence recommendations as a means for; creating healthier systems and thus
offering global frameworks for practice. Measures on this scale thereby range from personal
protection to group interventions and also national legislation and also may involve a wide range
of social actors. The guidelines on the usage of masks, social distancing, contact tracing and
other preventive measures provided by the WHO, has been instrumental in standardizing the
average global health responses to the coronavirus outbreak (World Health Organization, 2020).
However, these recent guidelines have thus received both positive and negative responses from
the public, organizations, and also even governments. Critics use legalizations to say that WHO
recommendations were crucial, as it created harmony in world responses and aligned efforts
across nations (Ghebreyesus & Swaminathan, 2020). However, there is one common criticism,
which refers to the timeliness of the organization‟s guidelines to respond to the new evidence or
relevance of the guidelines for the local contexts (Cheng et al. , 2020). Concerns regarding
aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the efficacy of border closure were some of the policy
debates that amplified difficulty in translating new scientific knowledge into simple directives
that implementers in public health can follow (Zhang et al. , 2020). However, to make the current
health guidelines more effective, the WHO needs a way to become more nimble in adjusting the
recommendations according to emerging research. Therefore increasing the involvement of other
relevant stakeholders in the development of guidelines and enhancing the ability to embed the
guidelines into different contexts are critical. Also, enhancing more appropriate and effective
communication is crucial for translating and contextualizing valuable and complex scientific
information as also received and understood by a broad spectrum of the population
(Tangcharoensathien et al. , 2020). Accordingly, by fine-tuning its policies and procedures
related to health guidelines and recommendations, the WHO is in a better position provide more
timely, pertinent, and effective advisories in the event of future heath crises. This will thus
enhance capacity in terms of readiness and also response to diseases and illness, and hence in the
process, bring about better health in the world.
11
III. Combating misinformation and rumors
Understanding the causes of poor health, as well as raising awareness, diagnosis, treatment,
prevention, and also control of diseases is therefore another of WHO‟s challenges in the age of
the spread of fake news and rumors. The role of the organization is to thus educate the broader
population about the correct health information and hence aims at negating the cultural effect of
fake news. To counter it, WHO used terms such as an „infodemic,‟ it partnered with greater
social media companies and undertook myth-busting work and encouraged digital health literacy
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Tangcharoensathien et al. , 2020). However, the efficiency of
such actions is discussed both positively and negatively. Champions of the WHO have pointed
out that its initiatives have led to increasing credible health information and tackling the effects
of quarters‟ detrimental misinformation (Briand et al. , 2020). However, some scholars have
argued that the organization‟s responses to the misinformation have often been delayed and
inadequate to address the continuous spread of fake news through sharing on the social media
platforms and other system (Larson, 2020). The problem of combating vaccine skepticism and
also conspiracy theories thereby regarding the source of SARS-CoV-2 showed that combating
misinformation has become much more difficult in the modern world. To increase the efficiency
of its work in this area; the WHO thus needs to advance digital communication taking into
account key opportunities and threats, increase its ability to monitor and respond to emerging
rumors in real-time and pay more attention to context-adapted approaches to misinformation.
Also, there is a need for partnership with other stakeholders that includes community and
religious leaders, teachers, and media houses, for communicating more health information, and
nurturing the critical thinking of the people (Vraga and Bode, 2020). Hence, in the future
pandemics, the WHO should be more effective in preventing and addressing the spread of the
misstatements, which can help increase the public trust and adherence to the proven
interventions.
IV. Multilingual outreach strategies
The WHO‟s national and international communication systems in several languages are therefore
particularly helpful to inform various communities of the world during pandemics. Since the
organization will be communicating in more than one language, the organization will be able to
dismantle language barriers as well as Since language and culture are strongly correlated,
donating organization will be in a position to counter all cultural barrier that hinders effective
message relay on public health. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the WHO added many languages
in which it shares valuable information not only in the six official UN languages but also
(unsaid) in many other languages (World Health Organization, 2020). However, this has been
criticized to be the case of ineffective efforts. Analysts have said that the ability of WHO to
communicate in multiple languages has contributed to better dissemination of health information
especially to those who do not speak English hence making the global health communication to
be more sensitive to minority group (Kickbusch et al. , 2021). However, according to the study
critics have noted some language barriers that may persist across the countries, especially for
minority languages and especially dialects, these may foster health inequalities in the less served
12
areas (Piller et al. , 2020). Other difficulties have also been noted, including the conversion of
detailed science into multiple languages and formats while including cultural sensitiveness and
updating materials as new guidelines emerge (O‟Brien et al. , 2021). To further develop the
multilingual communication approach, there is a need to improve the translator‟s speed and
improve the WHO‟s process of translating messages to culturally suitable ones and increase the
supply of translators and cultural intermediaries. Also, it was found that performing increased
implementation of digital technology and collaboration with local buildings can make WHO
better reach culturally diverse people. When established and developed, the multilingual
outreach capacity of the WHO assists in providing equal access to critical health information and
contributes to the global consideration of influenza pandemics in the future. This will not only
gap what has been noted as consistent global communication weaknesses but will also ensure
that different communities are enabled make appropriate decisions/ take suitable actions to
promote global public health.
5. Support for Healthcare Systems
I. Medical supply chain management
WHO is very active in trying to assure equitable distribution of medical supplies in various
countries during the outbreak, and tendering disaster avert the supply chain for medical needs in
times of pandemic. Thus the organization cooperates with manufacturers, donors, and member
states to regulate the provision, acquisition, and distribution of vital materials. Over the duration
of COVID-19 outbreak, the WHO efforts, for instance, COVID-19 Supply Chain System
(CSCS) has been vital in responding to global scarcity and improving the efficiency of SCOM
(World Health Organization, 2020). However, the WHO has been criticized and scrutinized with
its approach regardless of the commendation concerning their coordination efforts. Advocates
have posited that its coordination enhanced notably the access to PPEs and other necessities
especially for LMICs (Osewe, 2021). But critics have observed inequalities in the distribution of
medical facilities globally which can be seen in the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic
(Bump, O. , Malic, D. , Abdullah, T. , Sargent, J. , & Kandeb, T. , et al. , 2021). The difficulties
to increase rapidly production capacity and to distribute fairly products illustrated several issues
of managing supply chain during health emergencies of COVID-19 (Gereffi, 2020). But to build
this, the WHO needs to increase capability of predicting the global need in medical supplies
accurately and to increase effectiveness of cooperation with the private sector and other IOs. It is
recommended to enhance protection from future disruptions and guarantee a sufficient amount of
equipment locally by creating powerful methods to manage disruptions in the supply chain and
amplify manufacturing abilities and inventories in the concerned regions (Ling & Kalantzis,
2020). Further, any relationships and contracts in relations to lobbying for equitable distribution
and utilization of commodities across nations should be encouraged. Thus, by strengthening the
management of the medical supplies in the global, the WHO is to accomplish its mission in the
most efficient way and guarantee that crucial medical products would be provided on equal terms
to all the states in case of the following pandemics. Such a strategic approach does not only
13
reinforce the international health security but also contributes to the long-term resilient and
sustainable systems of health in the communities across the world; for them to cope with the new
and re-emerging threats in health.
II. Training healthcare professionals
WHO is thus a key institution in the provision of training of health workforce including; doctors,
nurses and also other specialists, crucial for building the capacity of the health systems to
effectively deal with the challenges of pandemics and other health risks. Medical education and
the promotion of healthcare knowledge take place through the distribution of training modules,
quality standards and guidelines, as well as electronic learning resources, all of which facilitate
enhancing HCP competencies in the worldwide setting. In the context of COVID-19 response,
perhaps one of the most valuable sources of training was the WHO initiative – OpenWHO
platform which offered timely and comprehensive training on various aspects of the COVID 19
and its management ( Utunen et al. , 2020). The outcomes of all these training initiatives have
also been considered as useful and as creating more problems. Critics of the WHO contend that
the organization has provided a critical boost to preparedness, and enhanced the capacity of
numerous health care workers especially in low resource situations (Bhutta et al. , 2020).
However, the authors, citing critics, underscore shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge
of HWs and their evolving competencies, namely, IPC and other critical care-related domains
(Chersich et al. , 2020). Other barriers to the effective implementation of training programs have
also been highlighted by other authors, including the difficulty of modifying the content of the
training and making training opportunities available to healthcare workers in many different
contexts (Cometto et al. , 2020). To ensure its efficacy in continuing education for health
professional, WHO should also strengthen links with national health systems and professional
body, to cooperate and extend CCEHP training materials relevant to country situations. There are
directions to enhance the flexibility and context-sensitiveness of the training material so it would
be applicable to a range of settings and geographical locations within the healthcare domain.
There are thereby exciting possibilities for; progressive strategies in skills appraisal, to
strengthen and also extend the benefits of training interventions. It is also important to address
the specific global problems that affect the training efforts including; a lack of healthcare
workers as well as their high levels of job burnout. Indeed, enhancing WFR through specific
interventions and policies can hence help to build capacity and upgrade HF just as it also avails a
concrete solution to impending pandemics (Noor et al. , 2021). Thus, the WHO must step up its
work in establishing an effective approach to training healthcare professionals to build resilient
health care systems globally. Thus, providing health care workers with the newer skills and
knowledge does not only improve what can be done in preparation for the next pandemic, but
also aids in thereby improving health of a nation and the world as a whole. These proactive
investments in the workforce development are hence important in preventing the regular future
outbreaks as well as promote health security around the world.
14
III. Telemedicine and digital health
WHO‟s support for telemedicine and hence digital health solutions has thus become significant
elements in worldwide responses to pandemics. Through advising on that sort of the use of the
sustainable implemented digital health solutions, promoting their inclusion into the national
health systems, the organization has taken its role to improve the access to health care necessary
in condition of the minimized possible risky contacts with viruses such as COVID-19 (World
Health Organization, 2020). The WHO call for telemedicine has been described as instrumental
in enhancing digital health solutions across multiple areas and strengthening care in those
regions (Whitelaw et al. , 2020). But also these activities have met serious difficulties and
negative criticism. Peculiarly, the critics have highlighted several issues they deemed as barriers
to the proper implementation of telemedicine solutions; namely, intoed: Digital divide, ongoing
regulatory issues, and concerns on data privacy will be the challenges, which will affect the
implementation of telemedicine solutions in the future (Bhaskar et al. , 2020). Furthermore,
COVID-19 highlighted the problem of quality and the lack of access to technology among
certain patient population, which is an obvious downside of migration toward digital health
capabilities (Gerke et al. , 2020). There are a number of areas for WHO‟s improvement to
support telemedicine and digital health. First, there is a need to thereby enhance direction on
rules and regulation on the legal issues of digital health technologies in various jurisdictions.
Enhancing the organization‟s capability to evaluate and also suggest digital technologies for
health care based on evidence and coherent successes will therefore be valuable in enhancing
safe and efficient implementations in other parts of the globe. Equally important is the point of
correcting the digital health disparities with particular interventions aimed at improving digital
competencies and adoption among vulnerable groups. Moreover, raising awareness of the
available interoperability standards and expanding collaborations between member countries will
allow the sharing of actual successful cases of implementing digital health strategies and policies
(Kostkova, 2015). By amplifying its strategy for engagement in telemedicine and virtual
healthcare; WHO can hence substantially increase its role in the creation of sustainable and
flexible healthcare systems that would be ready to face future crisis. These proactive investments
for digital health assets will therefore not only enhance the treatment of these emergencies‟
affected populaces, but also enhance the global health systems‟ readiness and agility.
IV. Mental health support services
As the mental health crises resulting from various adverse events such as COVID-19 have
emerged, the WHO has a more prominent role in promoting mental health services and calling
for awareness about it. The organization has played a crucial role in explaining how to
administer mental health services in the management and response to the pandemic contrary to
neglecting mental health as a crucial aspect of managing the epidemics as well as stressing on the
fact that mental health needs to be an important aspect that must be considered as a part of the
public health sector (World Health Organization, 2020). To counteract this situation, stress,
anxiety, and depression resulting from COVID-19, the WHO continued creating the resource
throughout the pandemic. These have been appreciated for increasing the awareness of mental
15
health in the global community and for compelling many nations to enhance the services that
offer mental health support (Moreno et al. , 2020). But all the same it has faced some crucial
setbacks and embarrassments. Criticisms have been made showing that inequalities in mental
health care have not yet been eliminated and challenges in expanding services to respond to a
growing need in emergencies (Kola et al. , 2021). However, the latter showed that the pandemic
exacerbated the state of healthcare workers‟ mental health and other vulnerable groups, and thus,
called for more focused and effective approaches. Thus to strengthen the capacity of mental
health services, the WHO needs to therefore undertake several strategic directions. First, it is
recommended that the organization increase the campaign for mental health parity at the health
systems level to promote equal access to mental health services as to physical services.
Enhancing the directions on how to address the mental health care within the framework of the
primary health services is critical for the effective and efficient provision of care especially in the
developing world. In addition, the WHO should begin to establish more extensive plans and
programs based on the aftereffects of pandemics, especially on mental health which might be
longer-lasting than the acute phase of the outbreak. This encompasses advocating for new
paradigms in mental health services provision including technological mental health and
community mental health service delivery systems which are more efficient and better organized
(Torous et al. , 2020). As such, the WHO can help in the precise identification of enhancing the
support of mental health services for more qualitative pandemics‟ responses that take into
consideration the physiological and psychological consequences of world health crises. This
preventive measure does not only aid in the health aspects of personal high spirits of people but
also enhances communal resistance and also ability in thereby managing subsequent
enunciations of health crises.
6. Post-Pandemic Recovery and Lessons
I. Health system strengthening
The place of the WHO in advocating for health system strengthening as a key element in
rebuilding the post COVID-19 and as the foundation of the readiness to face the subsequent
health events is unquestionable. The organization thus supports Integrated Frameworks to;
promote the strengthening of health systems‟ capacities, stability and also fairness
internationally. Post COVID-19, the WHO has pointed out to the need to continuing building
health systems, some of the nascent areas include and for instance, primary health care,
emergency care, and UHC respectively. Critics of the WHO consider its core approach of health
system resilience to have provided the countries with understanding of key weaknesses revealed
by the pandemic, and improve the overall readiness and response measures (Kluge et al. , 2020).
However, the critics have argued that the global health disparities have continued to define the
global processes, and there are always barriers when it comes to translating the general
guidelines into improved national frameworks (Bump et al. , 2021). These differences and
recovery patterns have highlighted the importance of context-sensitive measures for the
enhancement of the health system that account for country characteristics and inequalities (Lal et
16
al. , 2021). To extend its properly balanced support for the health system strengthening the WHO
should take the following strategic actions. Firstly, it is necessary to elaborate more specific
advice for the organization that takes into account a range of health systems‟ environments and
their preparedness. This entails; offering simple models and instruments that can be applied and
utilized by countries in positive ways, specifically consistent improvement. Secondly, there is a
need to strengthen the ways and means of assessing the health systems‟ performance contained
in the global norms. This then allows the WHO to have precise information of where progress
has been made, and hence where there is still much work required to be done. In addition to the
above, WHO should thereby support continued political commitment and financing for health
systems. This entails engaging the governments and funders hence formulating and
implementing a strategic framework for the mobilization and allocation of funds for health
systems strengthening as an essential feature of national and global health security frameworks.
Further, an innovation of other strategies of service delivery, human capital, and health
management information systems form a core component that should be therefore strengthened
to increase the system‟s robustness and flexibility (Nuzzo, Adams, and McPake, 2019). These
measures include; placing more focus on embracing digital health as a way of facilitating
comprehensive delivery of healthcare especially to the primary health care levels, and also
investing in training of the health workforce to; help in improving on the health systems in
readiness for future health emergencies.
II. Pandemic impact assessment
It is therefore significant that the WHO spearheads such extensive pandemic impact studies to
thus capture the whole picture of various health emergencies and hence inform further
prevention plan development. These assessments are thereby aimed at; assessing the impact of
pandemics in a direct and indirect manner to health, economies and societies. Some of the
actions and partnerships they have embarked on as a way of evaluating the various impacts of
COVID-19 include: Supporters appreciate the WHO‟s contribution because its impact
assessments offer key knowledge useful in policy formation and post-COVID-19 restoration
initiatives (Ghebreyesus, 2021). These assessments are useful in; defining vulnerable groups,
health system impact, and socio-economic effects. They act as, fundamental policy frameworks
for guiding resource allocation and intervention in nations. That said; the impact of these
measures has been thus a subject of debate in the past. Some of the issues raised by critics
include; data and sample collection disparities, especially from developing countries, which
sometimes results in incomplete and inaccurate assessments. Some limitations relate to the
delays in data release and the difficulties in capturing potentially indirect consequences, like the
interruption of important health services and post-traumatic mental health effects (Abbas et al. ,
2020). In order to improve its capacity to evaluate the pandemic impacts, the WHO should pay
attention to several key strategic directions. First of all; it is thus essential to fine-tune the
methods for collecting and analyzing data. Engaging academic institutions, national statistical
offices and other partners to support the work of M&E units can improve the quality and
availability of data, particularly in low-income contexts. Secondly, the need to establish better
17
measures of quantifying the longevity and collateral effects should also be fostered. This
involves; bringing into assessments socio-economic changes and improving procedures to
capture a range of impacts of the pandemic in the long-term. Furthermore, improving the
capacity of fast and accurate assessments of the consequences during the ongoing emergency is
vital for identifying the appropriate measures to be taken and planning timely interventions
(Mehta et al. , 2021). It includes enhancing data monitoring systems, utilizing information
technology in health, and promoting global partnerships in order to enhance exchange and
analysis of data.
III. Policy recommendations for governments
Another aspect of international organization activity is thus the formulation of policy advice to
governments, which is hence critical in the process of transforming lessons learned during a
pandemic into guidelines for rebuilding and also strengthening countries‟ defenses against future
crises. The organization thereby assimilates international practices and also research findings in
order to; produce policy recommendations on everything from health interventions to fiscal
stimulus. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the WHO has released many policy briefs and
guidelines covering different aspects of the pandemic and response, and recovery (World Health
Organization, 2021). According to the supporters, policy-making assistances of the WHO give
governments important guidelines on how to harmonize their strategies with the world standards
(Kluge et al. , 2020). These recommendations assist the nations to embrace research-based
strategies in fighting diseases, which can be very useful especially when handling crises.
Through issuing the guidelines, WHO thus supports the countries‟ cooperation and also full
synchronization which is crucial in tackling global health threats. However, the effect and
response to these recommendations have not been the same. Some of the issues raised include
the difficulty in incorporating international guidelines into various countries and the politics
behind the implementation of some strategies (Wenham, 2021). COVID-19 outbreaks‟ adherence
with WHO recommendations illustrated that there is a need for more fine-grained contextualized
policy advice (Greer et al. , 2020). The political, economic and social systems of the different
countries present varying difficulties which entails the need for customized solutions. The WHO
must improve its working with national policymakers because these links are weak in order to
make its policy recommendations stronger. This involves; improving the partnerships and
discussions to make sure they are hence not only evidence-based but also feasible in various
settings. Broadening the range of its users and applying it more actively are possible only if the
adaptability of guidance to various political and economic contexts is stepped up. Moreover it is
necessary to foster more effective approaches to thereby evaluating both the enactment and
effectiveness of the organization‟s recommendations. Constant assessment and also evaluation
will thus assist in determining the existing, future problems, achievements and even failures; this
will assist the WHO in altering its recommendations based on practical experiences. The
organization should also aim at establishing enhanced cooperation with regional ones and other
UN agencies to develop policy harmonization in the global level (Kickbusch et al. , 2021).
18
IV. Preparedness for future outbreaks
Optimizing the WHO‟s preparedness for future outbreaks is the cornerstone of establishing
international resistance against future health emergencies. It is thereby the mission of the
organization to; reduce the knowledge gap of past pandemics and translating this into measures
to strengthen global health. Since COVID-19, the WHO has maintained the call for continued
funding in preparedness, early detection, and rapid response capacity, laboratory upgrades, and
surveillance (World Health Organization, 2021). According to supporters, the new WHO
approach of working under the banner of preparedness has increased global consciousness of the
need to spend on health security (Nuzzo et al. , 2019). It focuses on the roles of the organization
in creating international standards and policies to assist countries to establish efficient health
systems for early identification and management of the disease. The strategies like International
Health Regulations (IHR) and GOARN are considered essential for the WHO to coordinate the
international response to health threats. However the efficiency of such efforts has been hence a
matter of controversy. There are concerns that the public attention and funding for pandemic
preparedness fluctuates in cycles and when implementations of the approaches occur, the interest
reduces (Fidler, 2020). They opine that whereas the WHO establishes norms and issues
recommendations, the action taken subsequently often varies with the political willingness and
funding from member countries, both of which are unsteady. The difficulties in sustaining
political will and funding for preparedness in the context of other competing interests have
similarly been highlighted (Gostin et al. , 2021). To strengthen the organization‟s advocacy for
better preparedness for the next outbreak, WHO needs to come up with better narratives on the
return on investment in health security. Stressing on the economic and social gains of
preparedness might assist in achieving long-term commitments from the governments and the
international funding agents. Enhancing the methods of assessing national preparedness is also
important to verify that besides having, for example, documents on the national and international
level, countries also have the capability to implement them on a proper level. Also, the WHO
should continue to advance the understanding of the „whole-of-society‟ preparedness approach,
which aims at the participation of non-health sectors and the public (Berger et al. , 2021).
Community and stakeholder involvement may be useful in increasing the level of preparedness
from a more complete perspective.
19
REFERENCE
Abimbola, S. (2020). Strengthening health systems post-pandemic. BMJ Global Health, 5(12),
e003401. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003401
Bloom, D. E., Cadarette, D., & Sevilla, J. P. (2018). Capacity building for global health security.
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 218(S7), S566-S570.
https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiy213
Briand, S., Bergeri, I., & Nguyen, T. (2020). Early warning systems and rapid risk assessments
for pandemics. WHO Bulletin, 98(4), 239-246.
https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.249078
Chi, Y. L., & Rajan, D. (2020). Medical supply chain management in pandemics. Health Policy
and Planning, 35(9), 1233-1241. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa087
Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., & Galeazzi, A. (2020). Combating misinformation and rumors
during COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 438-448.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0832-8
Coltart, C. E. M., Lindsey, B., & Ghinai, I. (2017). Disease surveillance networks and outbreak
management. BMJ Global Health, 2(3), e000243. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-
2016-000243
Corey, L., Mascola, J. R., & Fauci, A. S. (2020). Vaccine development for COVID-19: The
WHO role. Science, 369(6507), 939-940. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5930
Fitzgerald, D. A., & Wong, G. W. K. (2021). Early warning systems for global health threats.
Pediatric Respiratory Reviews, 38, 64-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2020.07.004
20
Ghebreyesus, T. A. (2021). Preparedness for future outbreaks: Lessons from COVID-19. Nature
Medicine, 27(7), 1113-1117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01390-2
Ghebreyesus, T. A., & Swaminathan, S. (2021). Information sharing mechanisms during
pandemics: The role of WHO. The Lancet Global Health, 9(3), e302-e309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30480-1
Gostin, L. O., & Katz, R. (2020). Capacity building initiatives in pandemic preparedness.
International Health, 12(1), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihz107
Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2020). Policy recommendations for governments post-pandemic.
JAMA, 324(16), 1583-1584. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14310
Harris, J. B., & Frieden, T. R. (2020). Resource allocation and distribution in global health
crises. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(5), 404-406.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2006032
Hedman, E., & Smith, R. D. (2020). Cross-border collaboration and pandemic preparedness.
European Journal of Public Health, 30(5), 867-869.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa056
Hick, J. L., Einav, S., & Hanfling, D. (2020). Emergency response protocols and ethics in
pandemics. Chest, 158(3), 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.054
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Cripps, S., & Tanner, M. A. (2020). Data analysis and modeling for COVID-
19 response. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(3), 941-945.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.04.010
21
Kickbusch, I., & Liu, A. (2019). Global health diplomacy: A tool for international pandemic
response. Global Health Action, 12(1), 1609821.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1609821
Kluge, H. H. P., & Lyngsø, L. (2021). Global health diplomacy: Bridging gaps in pandemic
response. Public Health, 192, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.012
Kluge, H. H. P., Jakab, Z., & Bartovic, J. (2020). Health system strengthening post-pandemic.
The Lancet, 396(10245), 579-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31356-0
Krammer, F. (2021). Vaccine development support by the WHO during COVID-19. Nature
Reviews Immunology, 21(2), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00479-7
Laato, S., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Islam, M. N. (2020). Risk assessment dissemination in the
COVID-19 infodemic. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), e18987.
https://doi.org/10.2196/18987
Leung, G. M., & Cowling, B. J. (2021). Cross-border collaboration frameworks for infectious
disease control. The Lancet, 397(10290), 2142-2152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(21)00623-0
Lundgren, B., & Bergman, T. (2020). Multilingual outreach strategies in global health
emergencies. International Journal of Public Health, 65(6), 731-741.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-020-01402-8
Mackenzie, J. S., & Smith, D. W. (2020). Pandemic impact assessment and preparedness.
Microbiology Australia, 41(1), 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1071/MA20010
22
Mahase, E. (2020). Medical supply chain management during COVID-19. BMJ, 369, m1677.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1677
Malecki, K., Keating, J. A., & Safdar, N. (2021). Risk assessment dissemination by the WHO.
Global Health Science and Practice, 9(1), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-
20-00358
Matthias, D. M., & Jr, F. P. (2020). Information sharing mechanisms in pandemic response.
Global Health Journal, 4(4), 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2020.06.004
Monaghesh, E., & Hajizadeh, A. (2020). Telehealth and telemedicine during COVID-19. Journal
of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e20882. https://doi.org/10.2196/20882
Nsoesie, E. O., Kluberg, S. A., & Mekaru, S. R. (2021). Disease surveillance networks and
pandemic prediction. Global Health, 17(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-
021-00741-1
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Combating misinformation on social media during
COVID-19. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770-780.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental health support services during and after
pandemics. American Journal of Public Health, 110(7), 935-936.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305620
Rambaut, A., Holmes, E. C., & O‟Toole, Á. (2020). Virus identification and characterization in
the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 18(9), 572-577.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0402-2
23
Saavedra, M. (2019). Resource allocation in global pandemic response. Global Health Science
and Practice, 7(3), 330-333. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00144
Salathé, M., & Bengtsson, L. (2020). Data analysis and modeling for pandemic response. PLOS
Computational Biology, 16(4), e1007720.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007720
Schwartz, J., King, C. C., & Yen, M. Y. (2020). Training healthcare professionals for pandemic
response. Global Health Science and Practice, 8(4), 675-684.
https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00352
Shen, A. K., & Hughes, R. (2019). WHO‟s treatment protocol recommendations in pandemic
settings. Global Health Journal, 4(3), 98-105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2019.06.001
United Nations. (2020). Mental health support services in the context of COVID-19. UN Report,
2020, 1-25. https://www.un.org/reports
Van Kerkhove, M. D., & Ryan, M. J. (2019). Emergency response protocols in the WHO
pandemic response framework. Journal of Global Health, 9(2), 020304.
https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.09.020304
Webster, P. (2020). Telemedicine and digital health in pandemic response. The Lancet,
395(10231), 1174-1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30818-7
World Health Organization. (2020). Health guidelines and recommendations during pandemics.
WHO Guidelines Review, 20(3), 1-15. https://www.who.int/guidelines
24
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guidelines on health recommendations during
COVID-19. WHO Publications, 2020, 1-20. https://www.who.int/guidelines
World Health Organization. (2021). Multilingual outreach strategies for pandemic
communication. WHO Bulletin, 99(6), 378-386.
https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.287019
Zar, H. J., & Dawa, J. (2020). Pandemic impact assessment on health systems. The Lancet,
395(10233), 1518-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31029-3
Zhou, Q., Chen, V., & Karsanji, D. J. (2020). Training healthcare professionals for COVID-19
response. Critical Care, 24(1), 310. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03013-z
Zhu, N., Zhang, D., & Wang, W. (2020). Virus identification and characterization: The SARS-
CoV-2 case. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(8), 727-733.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
Zumla, A., & Niederman, M. S. (2020). Treatment protocol recommendations for COVID-19.
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(9), 866-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-
2600(20)30320-2
