Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:33:32.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Self-Centric and Altruistic Unmet Needs for Ebola: Barriers to International Preparedness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

Linda H.M. Van de Burgwal*
Affiliation:
Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Artemis One Health Research Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands
Leslie A. Reperant
Affiliation:
Artemis One Health Research Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands
Albert D.M.E. Osterhaus
Affiliation:
Artemis One Health Research Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands Department of Pathology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany Viroclinics BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Sorana C. Iancu
Affiliation:
Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Esther S. Pronker
Affiliation:
Viroclinics BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Eric Claassen
Affiliation:
Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Artemis One Health Research Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Linda van de Burgwal, Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth- and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).

Abstract

Objective

Barriers to international Ebola preparedness may be elucidated by identifying heterogeneities in arguments to invest in countermeasures during “peace time.”

Methods

For each patent family (related patent documents that differed only by limited alterations to the same invention) concerning Ebola and published until the end of 2014 the oldest patent document was analyzed. Grounded theory coding identified 5 unmet needs for (1) vaccines and therapies, (2) control of outbreaks in endemic areas, (3) detection and control of outbreaks in nonendemic areas, (4) better understanding of filoviruses, and (5) protection against bioterrorism. Odds ratios for unmet needs by geographic regions and institution types were compared by using Pearson’s chi-square test.

Results

Statistically significant heterogeneities in unmet need profiles were found. US applicants combined self-centric and altruistic arguments, focusing on medical unmet needs and bioterrorism protection. Russian and Asian applicants emphasized self-centric motives, specifically, detection and control of nonendemic outbreaks. A clear, statistically significant mismatch between industry and academia was found: whereas industrial applicants focused on bioterrorism and neglected detection and control of nonendemic outbreaks, academic applicants did the opposite.

Conclusions

This research identified heterogeneities in articulated needs between geographic regions and stakeholder types. Structural articulation of unmet needs may form the basis for attuning stakeholder engagement strategies while progression across the demand-driven value chain might necessitate international concordance. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:644–648)

Type
Brief Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Reperant, LA, Van de Burgwal, LHM, Claassen, E, et al. Ebola: public-private partnerships. Science. 2014;346(6208):433-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6208.433-b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Osterholm, MT, Moore, KA, Gostin, LO. Public health in the age of Ebola in West Africa. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):7-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Siedner, MJ, Gostin, LO, Cranmer, HH, Kraemer, JD. Strengthening the detection of and early response to public health emergencies: lessons from the West African Ebola epidemic. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Philips, M, Markham, Á. Ebola: a failure of international collective action. Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61606-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Grepin, KA. International donations to the Ebola virus outbreak: too little, too late? BMJ . 2015;350:h376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Larson, C. China ramps up efforts to combat Ebola. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/china-ramps-efforts-combat-ebolav. Published November 3, 2014. Accessed May 13, 2016.Google Scholar
7. Burkle, FM. Global health security demands a strong international health regulations treaty and leadership from a highly resourced World Health Organization. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(5):568-580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Strauss, S. Ebola research fueled by bioterrorism threat. CMAJ. 2014;186(16):1206. 10.1503/cmaj.109-4910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. van den Nieuwboer, M, van de Burgwal, LHM, Claassen, E. A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and development: valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):9-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2015.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Huggett, B. Profiting from Pandemics. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(6):491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Van de Burgwal supplementary material

Table S1

Download Van de Burgwal supplementary material(File)
File 11.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Van de Burgwal supplementary material

Table S2

Download Van de Burgwal supplementary material(File)
File 12 KB