ReviewDialogues in health2026
Strengthening Global Health Security in West Africa: Insights from Joint External Evaluations and After-Action Reviews.
Review in Dialogues in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: West Africa faces recurring public health outbreaks, including Ebola, COVID-19, and Mpox, underscoring the need for strong Global Health Security (GHS) core capacities. This study uses Joint External Evaluation (JEE) scores and After-Action Review (AAR) findings to assess public health emergency preparedness across 15 West African countries and identify gaps between theoretical assessments and operational response capacity. Methods: A mixed-methods approach compared JEE scores (2016-2023) with thematic analysis of AAR findings from major outbreaks. Consistency between JEE-predicted capacities and AAR-reported challenges was assessed using a three-level rating system (High/Moderate/Low) and the Kappa statistic. Results: In 68 of 105 technical area comparisons (65%) of cases, JEE scores accurately predicted weaknesses in laboratory systems and workforce development. However, in 37 comparisons (35%) of cases, JEE scores overestimated preparedness, particularly in risk communication(all15 countries,100%), real-time surveillance(13 of 15 countries, 87%), and cross-border coordination, where countries with high scores faced operational failures during outbreaks. AARs revealed logistical bottlenecks, supply chain disruptions, and coordination failures not captured by JEEs. Alignment with SDG 3.d (health security), SDG 10 (inequalities), SDG 17 (partnerships), and SDG 9 (infrastructure) underscores broader development implications. Conclusion: While JEE is valuable for baseline assessment, it incompletely predicts real-world outbreak response performance. Integrating AAR findings into national planning and refining JEE indicators to include operational metrics will enhance health security evaluations. Regionally coordinated action through WAHO is essential for addressing gaps and building resilient systems aligned with sustainable development goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.