Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network’s (GOARN) mechanism used to rapidly deploy technical support for international responses and highlighted areas that require strengthened capacity within the Network. GOARN’s partners in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions were engaged to explore their levels of preparedness, readiness and ability to respond to international public health emergencies. Methods: Consultative discussions were held and a survey was conducted with GOARN’s partners from the two WHO regions. Discussion topics included partners’ capacity to support and participate in a GOARN deployment, training, research and collaboration. Descriptive and content analyses were conducted. Results: Barriers to engaging in GOARN’s international outbreak response efforts included limited numbers of personnel trained to respond to outbreaks; institutional, financial and administrative hurdles; and limited collaboration opportunities. Partners identified innovative solutions that could strengthen their engagement with deployment, such as financial subsidies, mentorship for less experienced staff, and the ability to provide remote support. Discussion: GOARN plays an important role in enabling WHO to fulfil its international alert and response duties during disease outbreaks and humanitarian crises that have the potential to spark disease outbreaks. Yet without systematic improvement to strengthen national outbreak capacity and regional connectedness, support for international outbreak responses may remain limited. Thus, it is necessary to integrate novel approaches to support international deployments, as identified in this study.

This article describes the authors' perspective on the importance of upskilling trainees in field epidemiology training programmes (FETPs) for public health response.

Objective: This paper examines the contributions made by the National Institute of Public Health to Cambodia’s response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic during 2020–2021. Methods: The activities conducted by the Institute were compared with adaptations of the nine pillars of the World Health Organization’s 2020 COVID-19 strategic preparedness and response plan. To gather relevant evidence, we reviewed national COVID-19 testing data, information about COVID-19-related events documented by Institute staff, and financial and technical reports of the Institute’s activities. Results: The main contributions the Institute made were to the laboratory pillar and the incident management and planning pillar. The Institute tested more than 50% of the 2 575 391 samples for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and provided technical advice about establishing 18 new laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 testing in the capital city of Phnom Penh and 11 provinces. The Institute had representatives on many national committees and coauthored national guidelines for implementing rapid COVID-19 testing, preventing transmission in health-care facilities and providing treatment. The Institute contributed to six other pillars, but had no active role in risk communication and community engagement. Discussion: The Institute’s support was essential to the COVID-19 response in Cambodia, especially for laboratory services and incident management and planning. Based on the contributions made by the Institute during the COVID-19 pandemic, continued investment in it will be critical to allow it to support responses to future health emergencies in Cambodia.

The aim of this study was to describe the scope of the Australian Field Epidemiology Training Programme's contributions to the COVID-19 response during the first 10 months of the pandemic, to assist with quantifying the impact they have had during the pandemic and inform future Master of Applied Epidemiology programme learning priorities.

Background: The emergence of a new pathogen requires a rapid assessment of its transmissibility, to inform appropriate public health interventions. Methods: The peer-reviewed literature published between 1 January and 30 April 2020 on COVID-19 in PubMed was searched. Estimates of the incubation period, serial interval and reproduction number for COVID-19 were obtained and compared. Results: A total of 86 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 33 estimated the mean incubation period (4–7 days) and 15 included estimates of the serial interval (mean 4–8 days; median length 4–5 days). Fifty-two studies estimated the reproduction number. Although reproduction number estimates ranged from 0.3 to 14.8, in 33 studies (63%), they fell between 2 and 3. Discussion: Studies calculating the incubation period and effective reproduction number were published from the beginning of the pandemic until the end of the study period (30 April 2020); however, most of the studies calculating the serial interval were published in April 2020. The calculated incubation period was similar over the study period and in different settings, whereas estimates of the serial interval and effective reproduction number were setting-specific. Estimates of the serial interval were shorter at the end of the study period as increasing evidence of pre-symptomatic transmission was documented and as jurisdictions enacted outbreak control measures. Estimates of the effective reproduction number varied with the setting and the underlying model assumptions. Early analysis of epidemic parameters provides vital information to inform the outbreak response.

For public health response to be effective, it is essential that we identify support mechanisms for people working in challenging response environments. The Regional Office for the Western Pacific needs programmes, such as Field Epidemiology Training Programmes, to ensure sustained workforce development. However, during crises a modified mentorship-like program may foster temporary support and empowerment within the workforce.