Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKaiser, Matthias
dc.contributor.authorChen, Andrew Tzer-Yeu
dc.contributor.authorGluckman, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-03T14:07:16Z
dc.date.available2022-02-03T14:07:16Z
dc.date.created2021-08-24T11:34:21Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1478-4505
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2976951
dc.description.abstractBackground This paper critically discusses the use and merits of global indices, in particular, the Global Health Security Index (GHSI; Cameron et al. https://www.ghsindex.org/#l-section--map) in times of an imminent crisis, such as the current pandemic. This index ranked 195 countries according to their expected preparedness in the case of a pandemic or other biological threat. The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic provides the background to compare each country's predicted performance from the GHSI with the actual performance. In general, there is an inverted relation between predicted versus actual performance, i.e. the predicted top performers are among those that are the worst hit. Obviously, this reflects poorly on the potential policy uses of this index in imminent crisis management. Methods The paper analyses the GHSI and identifies why it may have struggled to predict actual pandemic preparedness as evidenced by the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper also uses two different data sets, one from the Worldmeter on the spread of the Covid-19 pandemics, and the other from the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, to draw comparisons between the actual introduction of pandemic response policies and the corresponding death rate in 29 selected countries. Results This paper analyses the reasons for the poor match between prediction and reality in the index, and mentions six general observations applying to global indices in this respect. These observations are based on methodological and conceptual analyses. The level of abstraction in these global indices builds uncertainties upon uncertainties and hides implicit value assumptions, which potentially removes them from the policy needs on the ground. Conclusions From the analysis, the question is raised if the policy community might have better tools for decision-making in a pandemic. On the basis of data from the INGSA Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, and with backing in studies from social psychology and philosophy of science, some simple heuristics are suggested, which may be more useful than a global index.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleShould policy makers trust composite indices? A commentary on the pitfalls of inappropriate indices for policy formationen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright The Author(s) 2021en_US
dc.source.articlenumber40en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12961-021-00702-4
dc.identifier.cristin1928270
dc.source.journalHealth Research Policy and Systemsen_US
dc.identifier.citationHealth Research Policy and Systems. 2021, 19, 40.en_US
dc.source.volume19en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal