Quantitative analysis of International Health Regulations Annual Reports to identify global disparities in the preparedness for radiation emergencies

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 12; no. 9; p. e052670
• Main Authors: Sharma, Umesh C, Attwood, Kristopher, Pokharel, Saraswati
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England British Medical Journal Publishing Group 05.09.2022; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Publishing Group
• Series: Original research
• Subjects: Annual reports; Disaster Planning; Disasters; Emergencies; Emergency preparedness; Global Health; health & safety; Humans; International Health Regulations; Legislation; Nuclear accidents & safety; protocols & guidelines; Public Health; Quantitative analysis; Radiation; Regions; Self evaluation; Variance analysis; protocols & guidelines; public health; health & safety
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052670

ObjectivesRadiation emergencies are rare but can have minor confined effects to catastrophic consequences across the large geographical territories. Geographical disparities in the preparedness for radiation emergencies can negatively impact public-safety and delay protective actions. We examined such disparities using the global and regional radiation preparedness data from the revised annual International Health Regulations (IHR) data sets.SettingsWe used IHR State Party Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool and its associated health indicators developed to mitigate public health risk from radiation emergencies. Using the most recent (2019) SPAR database developed for radiation emergencies, along with 12 other cross-sector indicators, we examined the disparities among WHO state and region-wide capacity scores for operational preparedness.ResultsBased on the analysis of the 2019 annual reporting data sets from 171 countries, radiation emergency was one of the top three global challenges with an average global preparedness capacity of 55%. Radiation emergency preparedness capacity scores showed highest dispersion score among all 13 capacities suggesting higher disparities for preparedness across the globe. Only 38% of the countries had advanced functional capacity with ≥80% operational readiness, with 28% countries having low to very low operational readiness. No geographical regions had ≥80% operational readiness for radiation emergencies, with 4/6 geographical regions showing limited capacity or effectiveness. Global data from 171 countries showed that the capacity to respond to radiation emergencies correlated with the capacity for chemical events with a correlation coefficient (ρ) of 0.70 (CI 0.61 to 0.77).ConclusionWe found major global disparities for the operational preparedness against radiation emergencies. Collaborative approaches involving the public health officials and policymakers at the regional and state levels are needed to develop additional guidance to adapt emergency preparedness plans for radiation incidents.