Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41987085›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2026

Pandemic ready or playing catch-up? A scoping review of public health training programs for pandemic preparedness and response efforts.

Kelsey Burton, Janae Best, Jamie DeCoster, Tiarney D Ritchwood

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kelsey BurtonDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Janae BestDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Jamie DeCosterCenter for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Tiarney D RitchwoodDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. tiarney.ritchwood@wfusm.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Education, Public Health ProfessionalPandemic PreparednessPandemicsPublic HealthHumansPublic Health InfrastructureCOVID-19Pandemic preparednessTraining programWorkforce Surge

Identifiers

PMID41987085
PMCPMC13200470

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.