ArticleBMC public health2026
Pandemic ready or playing catch-up? A scoping review of public health training programs for pandemic preparedness and response efforts.
Article in BMC public 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
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for scalable, adaptable training programs to support public health preparedness and response. While many training initiatives emerged globally, their effectiveness, sustainability, and relevance to community needs remain uneven. This scoping review characterizes the landscape of pandemic-related training programs and identifies barriers, facilitators, and gaps in preparedness education for public health professionals, community-based organizations (CBOs), and frontline responders.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 2005 and 2023. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide data extraction and thematic synthesis, we examined training programs focused on pandemic preparedness, including design, delivery, implementation processes, and evaluation strategies.
resultsThirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Training programs varied in scope, format, and target populations, with most focused on COVID-19 and conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Programs commonly emphasized contact tracing, epidemiology, surveillance, and community engagement. While virtual formats increased accessibility, participants often preferred in-person, interactive learning. Facilitators were associated with perceived success included strong partnerships, culturally tailored materials, and improvement through feedback, while barriers were associated with program challenges included limited infrastructure, unclear learning objectives, lack of sustained funding, and inadequate evaluation. Most programs were reactive and short-term, with minimal input from community stakeholders. Trust, equity, and cultural responsiveness emerged as central themes.
conclusionsPreparedness training programs remain fragmented and overly reliant on crisis-driven implementation. Future programs would benefit from prioritizing sustained investment, co-design with community partners, and use of validated frameworks like CFIR to guide development and evaluation. Strengthening the capacity of CBOs and embedding preparedness within trusted community networks are essential to building equitable and resilient public health systems.
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.