Enhancing the Legitimacy of Local Government Pandemic Influenza Planning through Transparency and Public Engagement
Identifieur interne : 002295 ( Main/Curation ); précédent : 002294; suivant : 002296Enhancing the Legitimacy of Local Government Pandemic Influenza Planning through Transparency and Public Engagement
Auteurs : P. Edward French [États-Unis]Source :
- Public Administration Review [ 0033-3352 ] ; 2011-03.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Actionable plan, Address activity, Allocation plans, Antiviral, Average score, Case isolation, Citizen involvement, Communication plans, Communication section, Community leaders, Community preparedness, Community preparedness leadership, Community resources, Community stakeholders, Complete response, Composite score, Composite scores, Considerable planning, Containment, Containment procedures, Dhhs, Dhhs guidelines, Disease control, Diverse values, Diverse values beliefs, Emergency care, Emergency communication activities, Emergency management, Ethical considerations, Ethical considerations checklist, Ethical implications, Ethical issues, Ethical manner, Friedman test, Government leaders, Guideline, Health care services, Health communications, Health threat, Health threats, Human services, Information availability, Initial input, Kansas city, Language minorities, Largest cities, Legal authorities, Legitimacy, Local government, Local government authority, Local government decision, Local government level, Local government pandemic planning, Local government preparation, Local governments, Local plans, Local questions, Minimal response, Mississippi state university, Mock exercises, Movement restriction, Municipal area, Municipal areas, Networking, Next pandemic, Northeast region, Objective activity, Operation plan, Operational objective, Operational objectives, Operational plan, Other plans, Pandemic, Pandemic plan, Pandemic planning, Pandemic plans, Pandemic preparedness, Pandemic response plan, Personal freedom, Plan documents communication activities, Plan notes, Policy decisions, Policy implementation, Possible points, Preexisting knowledge, Preparedness, Preparedness plans, Priority groupings, Private industry, Professional groups, Public administration, Public administration review, Public administration review march april, Public administration series, Public engagement, Public health, Public health communications, Public health decision, Public health interventions, Public health measures, Public health response measures, Public policy, Public release, Public understanding, Regular review, Relevant criteria, Relevant stakeholders, Representative group, Representative sample, Resident protection, Response measures, Response processes, Restrictive measures, Scarce resources, Special issue, Special populations, Stakeholder, Stakeholder groups, State criteria, Statistical analyses, Timely information, Total number, Total score, Transparency, Unique circumstances, Vaccine, Website, West region, West regions, Wichita.
Abstract
Ethical issues in an influenza pandemic often require local government officials to make unprecedented, complex decisions. Effective planning with significant input from key community stakeholders is required well ahead of time in order to anticipate and mitigate a serious health crisis. The author evaluates the pandemic plans of 28 large cities across the United States using criteria derived from guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The analysis reveals that planning legitimacy can be enhanced by wider transparency and civic engagement, greater opportunities for the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision making, mock community‐wide exercises and drills, as well as more public access to comprehensive emergency planning information.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02336.x
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :001688
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :001688
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :000793
- to stream Main, to step Merge: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :002323
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:492DDB7FCB8C3A5E6FC74F4516DFECD352462E08Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Enhancing the Legitimacy of Local Government Pandemic Influenza Planning through Transparency and Public Engagement</title>
<author><name sortKey="French, P Edward" sort="French, P Edward" uniqKey="French P" first="P. Edward" last="French">P. Edward French</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:492DDB7FCB8C3A5E6FC74F4516DFECD352462E08</idno>
<date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02336.x</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-RHCCM3XC-C/fulltext.pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001688</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001688</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001688</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000793</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000793</idno>
<idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0033-3352:2011:French P:enhancing:the:legitimacy</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">002323</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">002295</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Enhancing the Legitimacy of Local Government Pandemic Influenza Planning through Transparency and Public Engagement</title>
<author><name sortKey="French, P Edward" sort="French, P Edward" uniqKey="French P" first="P. Edward" last="French">P. Edward French</name>
<affiliation></affiliation>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Public Administration Review</title>
<title level="j" type="alt">PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0033-3352</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1540-6210</idno>
<imprint><biblScope unit="vol">71</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="253">253</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="264">264</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope>
<publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2011-03">2011-03</date>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0033-3352</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0033-3352</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Actionable plan</term>
<term>Address activity</term>
<term>Allocation plans</term>
<term>Antiviral</term>
<term>Average score</term>
<term>Case isolation</term>
<term>Citizen involvement</term>
<term>Communication plans</term>
<term>Communication section</term>
<term>Community leaders</term>
<term>Community preparedness</term>
<term>Community preparedness leadership</term>
<term>Community resources</term>
<term>Community stakeholders</term>
<term>Complete response</term>
<term>Composite score</term>
<term>Composite scores</term>
<term>Considerable planning</term>
<term>Containment</term>
<term>Containment procedures</term>
<term>Dhhs</term>
<term>Dhhs guidelines</term>
<term>Disease control</term>
<term>Diverse values</term>
<term>Diverse values beliefs</term>
<term>Emergency care</term>
<term>Emergency communication activities</term>
<term>Emergency management</term>
<term>Ethical considerations</term>
<term>Ethical considerations checklist</term>
<term>Ethical implications</term>
<term>Ethical issues</term>
<term>Ethical manner</term>
<term>Friedman test</term>
<term>Government leaders</term>
<term>Guideline</term>
<term>Health care services</term>
<term>Health communications</term>
<term>Health threat</term>
<term>Health threats</term>
<term>Human services</term>
<term>Information availability</term>
<term>Initial input</term>
<term>Kansas city</term>
<term>Language minorities</term>
<term>Largest cities</term>
<term>Legal authorities</term>
<term>Legitimacy</term>
<term>Local government</term>
<term>Local government authority</term>
<term>Local government decision</term>
<term>Local government level</term>
<term>Local government pandemic planning</term>
<term>Local government preparation</term>
<term>Local governments</term>
<term>Local plans</term>
<term>Local questions</term>
<term>Minimal response</term>
<term>Mississippi state university</term>
<term>Mock exercises</term>
<term>Movement restriction</term>
<term>Municipal area</term>
<term>Municipal areas</term>
<term>Networking</term>
<term>Next pandemic</term>
<term>Northeast region</term>
<term>Objective activity</term>
<term>Operation plan</term>
<term>Operational objective</term>
<term>Operational objectives</term>
<term>Operational plan</term>
<term>Other plans</term>
<term>Pandemic</term>
<term>Pandemic plan</term>
<term>Pandemic planning</term>
<term>Pandemic plans</term>
<term>Pandemic preparedness</term>
<term>Pandemic response plan</term>
<term>Personal freedom</term>
<term>Plan documents communication activities</term>
<term>Plan notes</term>
<term>Policy decisions</term>
<term>Policy implementation</term>
<term>Possible points</term>
<term>Preexisting knowledge</term>
<term>Preparedness</term>
<term>Preparedness plans</term>
<term>Priority groupings</term>
<term>Private industry</term>
<term>Professional groups</term>
<term>Public administration</term>
<term>Public administration review</term>
<term>Public administration review march april</term>
<term>Public administration series</term>
<term>Public engagement</term>
<term>Public health</term>
<term>Public health communications</term>
<term>Public health decision</term>
<term>Public health interventions</term>
<term>Public health measures</term>
<term>Public health response measures</term>
<term>Public policy</term>
<term>Public release</term>
<term>Public understanding</term>
<term>Regular review</term>
<term>Relevant criteria</term>
<term>Relevant stakeholders</term>
<term>Representative group</term>
<term>Representative sample</term>
<term>Resident protection</term>
<term>Response measures</term>
<term>Response processes</term>
<term>Restrictive measures</term>
<term>Scarce resources</term>
<term>Special issue</term>
<term>Special populations</term>
<term>Stakeholder</term>
<term>Stakeholder groups</term>
<term>State criteria</term>
<term>Statistical analyses</term>
<term>Timely information</term>
<term>Total number</term>
<term>Total score</term>
<term>Transparency</term>
<term>Unique circumstances</term>
<term>Vaccine</term>
<term>Website</term>
<term>West region</term>
<term>West regions</term>
<term>Wichita</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Ethical issues in an influenza pandemic often require local government officials to make unprecedented, complex decisions. Effective planning with significant input from key community stakeholders is required well ahead of time in order to anticipate and mitigate a serious health crisis. The author evaluates the pandemic plans of 28 large cities across the United States using criteria derived from guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The analysis reveals that planning legitimacy can be enhanced by wider transparency and civic engagement, greater opportunities for the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision making, mock community‐wide exercises and drills, as well as more public access to comprehensive emergency planning information.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/SrasV1/Data/Main/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002295 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 002295 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Sante |area= SrasV1 |flux= Main |étape= Curation |type= RBID |clé= ISTEX:492DDB7FCB8C3A5E6FC74F4516DFECD352462E08 |texte= Enhancing the Legitimacy of Local Government Pandemic Influenza Planning through Transparency and Public Engagement }}
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. | ![]() |