Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 26;19(7):e0307503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307503

High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of early detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional study

Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto 1,2,*, Hugo Arroyo-Hernández 3
Editor: Moises Leon Juarez4
PMCID: PMC11280228  PMID: 39058756

Abstract

Introduction

Recent outbreaks of monkeypox (Mpox) have occurred in countries outside of Africa, with large numbers of cases spreading rapidly to almost every continent. We aimed to analyze the correlation between the Global Health Security (GHS) Index (categories and indicators) and the Mpox case rate in different regions and globally.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we used data from Mpox cases from the WHO, and the GHS categories and indicators for detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, international norms compliance, and risk environment. Outcome measures were the relationship between GHS index (categories and indicators) and Mpox case rate using crude and adjusted non-linear regression models.

Results

After performing adjusted analyses, only risk environment and detection and reporting index were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries and the Region of the Americas, respectively. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) indicators of the prevention category, risk communication of the rapid response category, the joint external evaluation and performance veterinary services of the norms category, and the infrastructure adequacy of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries (p<0.05). Laboratory systems strength and quality indicator of the detection and reporting category, and emergency response operation indicator of the response rapid category were associated with Mpox case rates in the countries of the region of the Americas (p<0.05). AMR indicator of the prevention of the emergence category, and the infrastructure adequacy of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox case rates in the countries of the European Region (p<0.05). In the countries of the other regions, only the trade and travel restrictions indicator of the rapid response category was associated with Mpox case rates (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Countries, particularly in the Americas region, with high levels of infrastructure adequacy and laboratory system strength and quality as measured by the GHS index are better equipped to detect more Mpox cases. Therefore, they have higher Mpox case detection rates and can successfully respond to Mpox outbreaks.

1. Introduction

Since 1970, monkeypox virus (MPXV) infections have been reported in several countries in central and western Africa and in Nigeria [14]. Between May 2022 and April 2023, more than 85,000 cases of Mpox were reported in 111 countries that are not endemic for Mpox [5]. Most of these cases have been reported in the Americas and Europe [5, 6]. In Latin America, Peru, Colombia, Chile and Brazil had the highest rates of Mpox per million inhabitants of all ages [7]. As a result, the Mpox outbreak was declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization (WHO) in July 2022 [8]. In the current global outbreak, transmission has been associated with sexual contact in high-risk groups [6, 9, 10]. The high incidence of Mpox in the Americas and Europe may be explained by several factors, including the capacity of individual countries to respond, the health system and the ability to detect cases (epidemiological surveillance). Other factors include changes in the behaviour of the population and at-risk groups.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some studies correlated Global Health Security (GHS) Index scores with SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 deaths and excess mortality [1113]. Among the GHS indicators that had associations with COVID-19 mortality rates were access to communication infrastructure, risk environment, government effectiveness, social inclusion and public trust in government [13]. More recently, a report showed that overall GHS index score correlated with Mpox case rates in countries in the Americas (cases per millions) [7]. Another study found that countries with a high overall score on the GHS index had a positive correlation with the number of cases and deaths from Mpox [14]. The GHS indicators are designed to identify gaps in preparedness and encourage countries to strengthen their health security capacities by assessing their ability to detect, prevent and respond to epidemics and pandemics [15]. According to the 2021 GHS Index report, all countries are unprepared for future epidemic/pandemic threats [16]. Despite these correlation analyses, overall GHS scores summarize countries’ capacity across all categories. However, countries with high overall scores may still have low scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels that have a more significant impact on outbreak-related outcomes [15]. Because of this, analysis of correlations between country GHS scores and Mpox cases must be performed at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels, and model weights must be adjusted to reflect the country context when outbreak outcomes are analyzed [15]. In this context, to date, there is no information on the relationship between the Mpox case rate and GHS categories and indicators such as detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, compliance with international standards, and risk environment at the global and regional levels.

We hypothesized that the GHS categories of detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, compliance with international standards and risk environment could explain global and regional Mpox case rates. Thus, we aimed to analyze the correlation between the GHS index (categories and indicators) and Mpox case rates in different countries and regions. The evaluation of the GHS on Mpox is critical for transmission control and will provide important insights into the relationships between the GHS index and Mpox cases rates.

2. Methods

2.1. Design study

This cross-sectional study was conducted following the guidelines for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) (S1 Table) [17]. This study was an ecological analysis that estimated the association between the rate of global and regional Mpox cases and the GHS index in the current global Mpox outbreak, from May 2022 to April 2023. This is an analysis based on surveillance data reported to WHO by Member States. The data have been submitted by countries in a variety of formats for collation by WHO. Therefore, no ethical approval or participant consent was required to conduct the study.

2.2. Data collection

We collected data on the scores from the GHS Index website (https://www.ghsindex.org) [16]. The 2021 GHS Index measures 195 countries’ epidemic and pandemic preparedness capacity. According to this information, all countries continue to be unprepared for the threat of epidemics and pandemics in the future. The 2021 GHS Index comprises 171 questions grouped into 37 indicators across six overarching categories. These categories include the overall score, prevention, detection and reporting, rapid response, health systems, standards and the risk environment. In this study, we have included the six categories of the GHS index for countries from seven regions that have reported cases of Mpox. In addition, we have included indicators that introduce each category to provide a better explanation of the relationship between the GHS index and Mpox cases (S2 Table). The overall score (0 to 100) for each country is a weighted sum of the scores in the six categories. The score for each category is given on a scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 represents the most favourable health security conditions, but does not mean that a country has a perfect national health security situation. A score of 0 is the least favourable condition, but does not imply a lack of capacity [16]. Each category is standardized based on of the sum of its underlying indicators and sub-indicators, and a weight is assigned to each. The weights in the model are dynamic and can be changed by the users. To facilitate reproducible comparisons across countries, categories and indicators, measurements have been normalized to a scale of 0 to 100 [16].

In May 2022, the WHO established a global surveillance system. This has been extended retroactively to 1 January 2022 and beyond. Mpox cases were extracted from the World Health Organization, 2022 Mpox Outbreak: Global Trends website (https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/) [5]. This website provides a global overview of the Mpox epidemiological situation as reported to WHO as of April 02, 2023. The report includes laboratory-confirmed cases as defined by the WHO’s working case definition published in the Surveillance, case investigation, and contact tracing for Mpox interim guidance. Countries with 0 cases by 04 April 2023 were excluded from the analysis. Countries with Mpox cases where the GHS index score was also not available were excluded from the study.

Population data of each country was obtained from the website of "The World Bank" (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL), updated as of September 31, 2022 [18]. Total population refers to a de facto definition of population that includes all residents regardless of legal status or nationality.

2.3. Statistical analysis

We estimated the cumulative crude rates of Mpox in each country (per 1,000,000 inhabitants). The cumulative rates of Mpox were calculated by dividing the number of Mpox cases per country, by the estimated population of each country. Population counts used to calculate the cumulative case rates were obtained from projections from The World Bank. Means and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for Mpox case rates, GHS Index score, and the categories, prevention of the emergency, detection and reporting, respond rapid, health systems, norms, and risk environment. Scatter plots were also provided to indicate the correlation between the GHS Index and its six indicators, and Mpox case rate for all the countries included, Region of the Americas, European region, and other regions.

We also assessed the association between the increase in Mpox cases rate, and the six GHS indexes in all the countries included, the region of the Americas region, the European region, and other regions. Subsequently, non-linear regression analyses were performed with the Kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS) method to explore the association between an increase in Mpox cases rate, the GHS index score, the categories, prevention of the emergency, detection and reporting, respond rapid, health systems, norms, and risk environment, and the indicators of each one of these six categories. These estimates were reported as an estimate of the average point marginal effect (Ave) and its standard error (ES). Calculations have been made for all countries included in the Americas, Europe and Other regions. In addition, adjusted analyses were performed to assess the association between Mpox case rate and the GHS index. In adjusted analyses, forward stepwise selection was used to select statistically significant regressors (p<0.05). The adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) shows the probability of the independent variables explaining the dependent variable in multiple regression models. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Statistical analyses were done using StataSE 17.0 Software.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

From 01 June 2022 to 04 April 2023, a total of 86,601 Mpox cases were reported in 99 countries (24 countries in the region of the Americas, 43 countries in the Europe region and 32 countries in other regions). The crude cumulative case rate of Mpox was higher in the Americas (22.8, IQR 4.8; 45.9) and Europe (16.2, IQR 3.2; 50.6). The average GHS score was higher in the countries of the European Region (52.8 SD 9.9) (Table 1).

Table 1. Mpox case rates and mean of Global Health Security indicators.

Mpox case rates Global Health Security Index Score Average score of the Global Health Security categories
Average (IQR) Prevention of the emergence Detection and reporting Respond rapid Health systems Norms Risk environment
All regions 5.3 (0.7; 31.1)* 46.8 (13.2) 38.3 (16.9) 42.0 (19.7) 41.8 (34.0; 51.8)* 46.5 (24.0; 54.7)* 52.7 (14.2) 62.4 (14.5)
Region of the Americas 22.8 (4.8; 45.9)* 43.3 (14.2) 35.3 (18.9) 37.1 (21.9) 38.6 (34.6; 49.5)* 37.3 (18.3; 54.8)* 49.4 (14.0) 57.3 (10.8)
European Region 16.2 (3.2; 50.6)* 52.8 (9.9) 46.6 (13.1) 45.1 (17.2) 45.5 (10.6) 51.2 (12.3) 59.7 (51.4; 63.9)* 73.4 (62.9; 79.9)*
Other regions 0.4 (0.1; 2.9)* 41.6 (13.5) 29.3 (15.8) 41.6 (21.1) 36.9 (29.9; 51.2) 33.8 (17.1) 49.4 (14.2) 54.8 (14.6)

*50th percentile (25th percentile; 75th percentile), rest of values are median and standard deviation. IQR, Interquartile range.

Fig 1 shows the rate of Mpox cases per million habitants, and the GHS index indicators for the total score and the six indicators for each country. In the Region of the Americas, the cumulative case rate was highest in Peru, followed by the USA, Colombia, Chile and Brazil. In the European region, the crude cumulative case rate was highest in Spain, followed by Portugal, Luxembourg, Micronesia and Belgium (Fig 1). In the other regions, the crude cumulative case rates were low (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Mpox cases per million habitants and GHS index indicators for total score and six indicators for countries and regions.

Fig 1

3.2. Regression analysis for the overall GHS index score and its six indicators

Country and region-level correlations between the GHS Index categories and Mpox case rates are shown in Table 2. GHS Index score, incidence prevention, detection and notification, rapid response, health systems and risk environment were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries (Fig 2 and Table 2). In the countries of the region of the Americas, GHS Index score, prevention, detection and notification, respond rapid, and norms were also associated with Mpox case rates (Fig 3 and Table 2). In the countries of European region, only the risk environment score was associated with Mpox case rates (Fig 4 and Table 2). In the countries of the other regions, GHS Index and its scores were not associated with Mpox case rates (Fig 5 and Table 2).

Table 2. Crude non-linear regression analysis between the Global Health Security Index categories and Mpox case rates.

Average SE p-value
All regions (99 countries)
Global Health Security Index score 0.42 0.12 0.001
 Prevention of the emergence score 0.27 0.08 0.003
 Detection and reporting score 0.16 0.05 0.005
 Respond rapid score 0.51 0.14 0.001
 Health systems score 0.42 0.12 0.001
 Norms score 0.17 0.12 0.17
 Risk environment score 0.64 0.16 <0.001
Region of the Americas (24 countries)
Global Health Security Index score 0.77 0.21 0.001
 Prevention of the emergence score 0.42 0.14 0.008
 Detection and reporting score 0.56 0.14 0.001
 Respond rapid score 1.24 0.33 0.001
 Health systems score 0.87 0.54 0.123
 Norms score 0.5 0.22 0.03
 Risk environment score 0.19 0.14 0.199
European Region (43 countries)
Global Health Security Index score 0.2 0.13 0.127
 Prevention of the emergence score 0.12 0.11 0.285
 Detection and reporting score 0.05 0.07 0.468
 Respond rapid score 0.15 0.11 0.179
 Health systems score 0.05 0.11 0.683
 Norms score 0.05 0.14 0.708
 Risk environment score 0.95 0.35 0.01
Other regions (32 countries)
Global Health Security Index score -0.005 0.007 0.502
 Prevention of the emergence score -0.0002 0.01 0.974
 Detection and reporting score 0.0002 0 0.959
 Respond rapid score -0.0004 0.01 0.956
 Health systems score -0.00074 0 0.866
 Norms score 0.0017 0.01 0.781
 Risk environment score 0.027 0.02 0.252

†Kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS) are used and the average of the point marginal effects are reported. SE: standard error. Dependent variable is Mpox case rate in each country (per 1,000 000 inhabitants).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Relationships between the GHS index categories and Mpox cases per millions habitants in 99 countries. A) Overall score. B) Prevention: Prevention of the emergence or release of pathogens. C) Detection and reporting: Early detection and reporting for epidemics of potential int’l concern. D) Respond rapid: Rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic. E) Health system: sufficient & robust health sector to treat the sick & protect health workers. F) Norms: Commitments to improving national capacity, financing and adherence to norms. G) Risk environment: Overall risk environment and country vulnerability to biological threats.

Fig 3. Relationships between the GHS index categories and Mpox cases per millions habitants in the region of the Americas.

Fig 3

A) Overall score. B) Prevention: Prevention of the emergence or release of pathogens. C) Detection and reporting: Early detection and reporting for epidemics of potential int’l concern. D) Respond rapid: Rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic. E) Health system: sufficient & robust health sector to treat the sick & protect health workers. F) Norms: Commitments to improving national capacity, financing and adherence to norms. G) Risk environment: Overall risk environment and country vulnerability to biological threats.

Fig 4. Relationships between the GHS index categories and Mpox cases per millions habitants in European region.

Fig 4

A) Overall score. B) Prevention: Prevention of the emergence or release of pathogens. C) Detection and reporting: Early detection and reporting for epidemics of potential int’l concern. D) Respond rapid: Rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic. E) Health system: sufficient & robust health sector to treat the sick & protect health workers. F) Norms: Commitments to improving national capacity, financing and adherence to norms. G) Risk environment: Overall risk environment and country vulnerability to biological threats.

Fig 5. Relationships between the GHS index categories and Mpox cases per millions habitants in others regions.

Fig 5

A) Overall score. B) Prevention: Prevention of the emergence or release of pathogens. C) Detection and reporting: Early detection and reporting for epidemics of potential int’l concern. D) Respond rapid: Rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic. E) Health system: sufficient & robust health sector to treat the sick & protect health workers. F) Norms: Commitments to improving national capacity, financing and adherence to norms. G) Risk environment: Overall risk environment and country vulnerability to biological threats.

After performing adjusted analyses, only risk environment (Ave 0.24, SE 0.09; p value = 0.005, R2 = 0.23) and detection and reporting score (Ave 0.23, SE 0.08, p value = 0.006; R2 = 0.60) were associated with Mpox case rates in the 99 countries and the region of the Americas, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3. Adjusted non-linear regression analysis between the Global Health Security Index categories and Mpox case rates.

Adjusted analysis
Average SE p-value R2
All regions (99 countries)
 Prevention of the emergence score 0.04 0.07 0.579 0.23
 Detection and reporting score 0.02 0.06 0.73
 Respond rapid score 0.1 0.1 0.331
 Health systems score 0.11 0.06 0.086
 Risk environment score 0.24 0.09 0.005
Region of the Americas (24 countries)
 Prevention of the emergence score 0.09 0.11 0.42 0.6
 Detection and reporting score 0.23 0.08 0.006
 Respond rapid score 0.28 0.14 0.057
 Norms score 0.07 0.14 0.648

†Kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS) are used and the average of the point marginal effects are reported. Dependent variable is Mpox case rate in each country (per 1,000 000 inhabitants).

3.3. Regression analysis for the indicators of the six GHS index score

Country and region-level crude non-linear regression analysis between the GHS Index indicators and Mpox case rates are shown in Table 4. Adjusted analyses were performed on statistically significant results.

Table 4. Crude non-linear regression analysis between the Global Health Security Index indicators and Mpox case rates.

All regions Region of the Americas European Region Other regions
Indicators by category Average SE p-value Average SE p-value Average SE p-value Average SE p-value
Prevention of the emergence score
 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 0.47 0.1 <0.001 0.27 0.12 0.035 0.46 0.13 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 0.228
 Zoonotic disease 0.1 0.05 0.037 0.65 0.2 0.003 -0.003 0.08 0.967 <0.01 0.01 0.984
 Biosecurity 0.15 0.06 0.006 0.37 0.11 0.003 0.05 0.08 0.571 <0.01 <0.01 0.85
 Biosafety 0.07 0.02 0.006 0.2 0.05 0.001 -0.03 0.03 0.356 <0.01 <0.01 0.819
 Dual-use research and culture of responsible science <0.01 0.01 0.9 0.01 0.01 0.334 -0.01 0.01 0.225 <0.01 <0.01 0.081
 Immunization <0.01 0.03 0.922 0.02 0.06 0.759 -0.02 0.07 0.744 -0.002 <0.01 0.461
Detection and reporting score
 Laboratory systems strength and quality 0.1 0.06 0.106 0.36 0.14 0.015 0.04 0.07 0.58 <0.01 <0.01 0.819
 Laboratory supply chains 0.02 0.01 0.102 NC 0.01 0.01 0.394 <0.01 <0.01 0.476
 Real-time surveillance and Reporting 0.1 0.04 0.011 0.32 0.09 0.001 0.03 0.04 0.374 <0.01 <0.01 0.224
 Surveillance data accessibility and transparency 0.31 0.08 <0.001 0.21 0.07 0.006 0.05 0.04 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 0.848
 Case-based investigation <0.01 0.03 0.975 0.12 0.05 0.041 -0.06 0.05 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 0.895
 Epidemiology workforce 0.04 0.04 0.258 0.07 0.04 0.088 0.45 0.38 0.243 -0.001 <0.01 0.804
Respond rapid score
 Emergency preparedness and response planning 0.04 0.03 0.149 0.25 0.1 0.021 -0.08 0.06 0.133 <0.01 <0.01 0.932
 Exercising response plans -0.02 0.06 0.772 NC -0.21 0.5 0.684 0.01 0.01 0.275
 Emergency response operation -0.001 0.01 0.878 0.05 0.02 0.007 -0.01 0.02 0.612 -0.003 <0.01 0.113
 Linking public health and security authorities NC NC NC NC
 Risk communication 0.16 0.06 0.007 0.11 0.06 0.083 0.13 0.06 0.055 0.01 <0.01 0.039
 Access to communications Infrastructure 0.47 0.28 0.099 0.28 0.14 0.068 0.07 0.19 0.733 0.01 <0.01 0.241
 Trade and travel restrictions 0.05 0.12 0.651 -0.17 0.09 0.071 0.06 0.08 0.401 0.02 0.01 0.009
Health systems score
 Health capacity in clinics, hospitals and community care centers 0.25 0.08 0.004 0.34 0.13 0.016 0.1 0.09 0.297 <0.01 <0.01 0.596
 Supply chain for health system and healthcare workers 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.96 0.28 0.002 -0.03 0.08 0.722 <0.01 <0.01 0.976
 Medical countermeasures and personnel deployment 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.17 0.05 0.004 -0.01 0.02 0.38 NC
 Healthcare access -0.19 0.15 0.212 0.23 0.33 0.49 -0.39 0.23 0.099 -0.13 0.05 0.017
 Communications with healthcare workers during a public health emergency 0.02 0.01 0.153 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.394 <0.01 <0.01 0.393
 Infection control practices NC NC NC NC
 Capacity to test and approve new medical countermeasures 0.01 <0.01 0.071 0.52 0.1 <0.001 0.44 0.19 0.023 <0.01 <0.01 0.536
Norms score
 IHR reporting compliance and disaster risk reduction 0.28 0.09 0.003 NC <0.01 0.02 0.831 0.001 <0.01 0.23
 Cross-border agreements on public health and animal health emergency response 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.02 0.02 0.333 0.02 0.02 0.495 <0.01 <0.01 0.332
 International commitments 0.05 0.06 0.426 -0.66 0.56 0.249 -0.03 0.06 0.546 <0.01 <0.01 0.506
 JEE (Joint External Evaluation) and PVS (Performance Veterinary Services) -0.15 0.05 0.004 -0.09 0.22 0.675 NC <0.01 <0.01 0.662
 Financing -0.03 0.03 0.362 0.03 0.06 0.641 -0.11 0.11 0.329 -0.001 <0.01 0.807
 Commi5ment to sharing of genetic & biological data & specimens <0.01 <0.01 0.071 NC NC NC
Risk environment score
 Political and security risk 0.27 0.09 0.003 -0.03 0.09 0.734 0.23 0.29 0.441 0.02 0.01 0.021
 Socio-economic resilience 0.36 0.11 0.001 0.08 0.11 0.5 0.42 0.19 0.033 <0.01 <0.01 0.654
 Infrastructure adequacy 0.52 0.1 <0.001 0.33 0.11 0.008 0.66 0.19 0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.868
 Environmental risks 0.08 0.07 0.251 0.06 0.11 0.564 0.11 0.15 0.464 <0.01 0.01 0.709
 Public health vulnerabilities 0.49 0.15 0.002 0.13 0.26 0.616 0.43 0.16 0.013 0.01 0.01 0.346

†Kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS) are used and the average of the point marginal effects. Dependent variable is Mpox case rate in each country (per 1,000 000 inhabitants). If two or more indicators were significant in a category, they entered the adjusted model 1 and if only one indicator was significant, they entered the adjusted model 2.

Abbreviations: NC; no convergent.

Country and region-level adjusted non-linear regression analysis between the GHS Index indicators and Mpox case rates are shown in Table 5. In adjusted model 3, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) indicator (Ave 0.19, SE = 0.07, p = 0.008) of the prevention of the emergence category, risk communication (Ave 0.19, SE 0.09, p = 0.035) of the rapid response category, the joint external evaluation (JEE) and performance veterinary services (PVS) (Ave -0.31, SE = 0.09, p = 0.002) of the norms category, and the adequacy of infrastructure (Ave 0.24, SE = 0.08, p = 0.003) of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox cases rates in the 99 countries (R2 of 0.43) (Table 5). Laboratory systems strength and quality indicator (Ave 0.33, SE = 0.11, p = 0.008) of the detection and reporting category, and emergency response operation indicator (Ave 0.26, SE = 0.09, p = 0.007) of the response rapid category were associated with Mpox cases rates in the countries of the Region of the Americas (R2 of 0.80) (Table 5). AMR (Ave 0.33, SE = 0.13, p = 0.016) of the prevention of the emergence category, and the infrastructure adequacy (Ave 0.39, SE = 0.15, p = 0.012) of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox cases rates in the European region countries (R2 of 0, 43) (Table 5). In the countries of the other regions, risk communication and trade and travel restrictions of the rapid response category, access to healthcare of the health systems category, and political and security risk of the risk environment category were associated with Mpox case rates in adjusted model 2; however, only trade and travel restrictions of the rapid response category was associated with Mpox case rates in adjusted model 3 (Ave 0.01, SE<0.01, p = 0.048) (Table 5).

Table 5. Adjusted nonlinear regression analysis between the Global Health Security Index indicators and Mpox case rates.

Model 1* Model 2** Model 3***
Indicators by category Average† SE p-value R2 Average† SE p-value R2 Average† SE p-value R2
All regions (99 countries) 0.45 0.43
Prevention of the emergence Score
 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 0.29 0.09 0.001 0.29 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.008
 Zoonotic disease 0.01 0.13 0.92
 Biosecurity 0.07 0.1 0.509
 Biosafety 0.04 0.71 0.479
Detection and reporting score
 Real-time surveillance and Reporting 0.04 0.06 0.453 0.19
 Surveillance data accessibility and transparency 0.19 0.06 0.002 0.07 0.05 0.191
Respond rapid score
 Risk communication 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.19 0.09 0.035
Health systems score
 Health capacity in clinics, hospitals and community care centers -0.03 0.08 0.727
Norms score
 Cross-border agreements on public health and animal health emergency response 0.08 0.04 0.036 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.325
 JEE (Joint External Evaluation) and PVS (Performance Veterinary Services) -0.19 0.09 0.029 -0.21 0.08 0.013 -0.31 0.09 0.002
Risk environment score
 Political and security risk 0.07 0.08 0.358 0.23
 Socio-economic resilience 0.09 0.1 0.35
 Infrastructure adequacy 0.22 0.07 0.002 0.16 0.07 0.015 0.24 0.08 0.003
 Public health vulnerabilities -0.05 0.15 0.715
Region of the Americas (24 countries) 0.81 0.8
Prevention of the emergence Score
 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 0.05 0.06 0.379 0.47
 Zoonotic disease 0.18 0.09 0.066
 Biosecurity 0.08 0.05 0.105
 Biosafety 0.08 0.05 0.105
Detection and reporting score 0.7
 Laboratory systems strength and quality 0.15 0.06 0.015 0.2 0.06 0.003 0.33 0.11 0.008
 Laboratory supply chains
 Real-time surveillance and Reporting 0.14 0.06 0.036 0.03 0.06 0.569
 Surveillance data accessibility and transparency 0.03 0.07 0.608
 Case-based investigation 0.08 0.09 0.353
Respond rapid score
 Emergency preparedness and response planning 0.25 0.09 0.014 0.41 -0.05 0.08 0.502
 Emergency response operation 0.12 0.05 0.016 0.21 0.08 0.017 0.26 0.09 0.007
 Health capacity in clinics, hospitals and community care centers 0.12 0.1 0.246
Health systems score
 Supply chain for health system and healthcare workers 0.25 0.11 0.035 0.73 0.28 0.11 0.023 0.42 0.21 0.065
 Medical countermeasures and personnel deployment <0.01 0.04 0.908
 Capacity to test and approve new medical countermeasures 0.18 0.07 0.015 0.2 0.07 0.009 0.23 0.11 0.058
Risk environment score
 Infrastructure adequacy 0.16 0.1 0.127
European Region (43 countries) 0.5 0.33
Prevention of the emergence Score
 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 0.28 0.13 0.035 0.33 0.13 0.016
Health systems score
 Capacity to test and approve new medical countermeasures 0.03 0.14 0.826
Risk environment score 0.95 0.35 0.01
 Socio-economic resilience 0.04 0.15 0.792 0.3
 Infrastructure adequacy 0.24 0.1 0.028 0.368 0.14 0.014 0.39 0.15 0.012
 Public health vulnerabilities 0.2 0.14 0.157
Others regions (32 countries) 0.35
Respond rapid score 0.31
 Risk communication 0.02 0.01 0.019 0.01 <0.01 0.061
 Trade and travel restrictions 0.02 0.01 0.003 0.01 <0.01 0.048
Health systems score
 Healthcare access -0.006 0.01 0.324
Risk environment score
 Political and security risk 0.002 0.01 0.633

*Adjusted for statistically significant indicators in each category in the crude analyses.

**Adjusted for the statistically significant indicators in model 1 and for the statistically significant indicators in the crude analyses.

*** Adjusted for all indicators that were statistically significant in model 2.

4. Discussion

This analysis is the first to provide a direct comparison between Mpox case rates and the GHS Index categories and indicators in different countries and regions. There are multiple factors for understanding the impact of Mpox outbreak relative to existing public health assessments. These factors include lack and availability of high-quality data, changes between populations, lack of resources, public health indicators available and vaccination against Mpox data. Currently, Mpox cases information in WHO is only available for 114 countries [5]. Case detection and notification are affected by laboratory capacity, infrastructure, surveillance epidemiological, and other factors. Therefore, middle-income and high-income countries are likely to have a more robust health security capacity for outbreak and emergency response. In this context, the GHS Index aims to identify gaps and opportunities for strengthening health systems. While the results of the GHS Index show that no country is prepared to respond to an epidemic or pandemic [4, 16], our findings suggest that countries with robust capacities for preparedness, response and effective risk communication can detect more Mpox cases and respond better to health emergencies. However, it is also important to note that one study reported that national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and GDP per capita were weakly correlated with the overall GHS index. Therefore, the categories and indicators in the GHS Index may be biased towards middle- and high-income countries in the region of Americas and Europe region, where high rates of Mpox cases have been reported [19].

We found a relationship between countries with better conditions for managing a risk environment and vulnerability to biological threats, and Mpox case rates after performing adjusted analyses. This category includes socio-economic, political, regulatory and ecological factors that increase the vulnerability to an outbreak [20]. In this category, infrastructure improvements were associated with Mpox case rates in the region of the Americas and Europe region. Approximately 23% of countries have high GHS Index scores, including the risk environment [16]. Among these countries, the USA, Spain or Belgium have more effective surveillance systems to detect emergencies, according to previous studies [11, 21]. In contrast, a study showed that a higher level of health safety capacity in the GHS Index, is associated with lower excess COVID-19 mortality [13, 22]. This relationship with improved infrastructure may have been essential for the implementation of risk communication strategies in the community, and therefore for the detection of more Mpox cases. Thus, a solid health infrastructure and preventive measures are critical to responding to a health crisis and detecting an outbreak.

The GHS provides valuable data to measure the adequacy of infrastructure or the strength and quality of laboratory systems in low, middle and high income countries at the time of the spread of aetiological agents with pandemic potential. However, if there is a large degree of dispersion in these data, the presence of outliers may affect the correlation coefficient and hence the results of the correlation. In this context, our findings also show that the early detection and reporting category and its indicators of laboratory system strength and quality, designed to assess laboratory capacity to detect priority diseases, were associated with Mpox case rates in the Americas after performing adjusted analyses. This finding may be related to the capacity for reliable and timely case detection, particularly in countries with stronger health surveillance systems for public health emergencies [11]. Although these variables are not unique to successful epidemic/pandemic containment, they are correlated according to their magnitude in a country or region. On the other hand, only the AMR indicator in the prevention of the emergence or release of pathogens category was associated with Mpox case rates in the overall analysis and in the European Region. This indicator may be related to high-income countries, as documented in a correlation analysis between GHSI-AMR and GDP per capita for high-income countries and those with high investment in health [23]. Lastly, the risk communication indicator in the rapid response category was correlated with an increase in the rate of Mpox cases. This suggests that countries with a better public health emergency communication strategy may be able to detect more cases, which would be associated with having a strong health infrastructure and better health services [13].

In the norms category, the JEE and PVS indicators were negatively associated with Mpox case rates in the overall analysis for all countries. This indicator is a collaborative, voluntary and externally validated assessment of countries’ preparedness for, detection of and rapid response to public health threats. This assesses commitments to improve national capacities, funding and alignment with global standards on international health rules. Notably, only 44 of the 99 countries surveyed had information [16], and most of these were countries with low case rates of Mpox. Therefore, it is likely that these 44 countries that were analyzed have shown a greater commitment to international standards for the response to public health emergencies [12, 24, 25].

For the countries in the other regions, only the trade and travel restriction indicator in the rapid response category was associated with Mpox case rates. A possible explanation is that by observing an increase in Mpox case rates, these countries may have improved early detection and reporting of cases, as these indicators have a greater impact on the GHS index, even though they may not limit the spread of Mpox [26]. However, since underreporting of Mpox cases is a common problem in countries with low GHS Index scores, these places may not have reliable data, so Mpox case rates are underestimated. Therefore, countries with fewer human resources for health and low GHS Index scores are more vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics due to limitations in essential health services. It is also important to note that a differentiated analysis was not possible due to the limited data available for these countries in the proposed models. Therefore, the directionality of correlations should be interpreted cautiously.

4.1. Limitations and strengths

Our study has several limitations. First, any measurement of countries’ performance on the GHS Index is subject to the nature of the outbreak and the lack of primary information on Mpox cases. Though GHS Index indicators can explain Mpox case rates, countries vary in their ability to detect and report Mpox cases. Consequently, the results of this study may change as the outbreak evolves and more information becomes available. Second, the association with the GHS Index may be limited by the lack of robust surveillance capacity in some countries, which may not be able to adequately track and report cases. For example, only 44 countries had JEE and PVS indicators available in the norms category. Therefore, this may have contributed to biased estimates. Third, our findings are also subject to the limitations of the GHS Index as such, since the indicators are based on publicly available documentation to quantify country capacity. Fourth, because of its design and the nature of our data at the country and regional level, our study is limited to presenting a correlation analysis and cannot prove causation. Finally, in estimating the Mpox case rate, we include no variables to adjust or standardize for the Mpox case rate within countries or regions, given the unavailability of country data on the WHO website. Failure to adjust for the Mpox case rate may have resulted in potential bias in country estimates.

Despite these limitations, the GHS Index is an important tool with a sound, rigorous/validated methodology for assessing global health security and pandemic preparedness. Data for each indicator and sub-indicator were obtained from WHO repositories. In addition, it is important to highlight that optimal GHS Index performance alone does not mean that health systems are prepared to respond to an Mpox outbreak. Therefore, future studies should evaluate the role of health systems, combined with the GHS Index, in assessing how to respond to an Mpox outbreak. According to the GHS Index Report, the overall scores summarize a country’s capacity across all categories, but countries with high overall scores may have low scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels [15]. Therefore, scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels have a greater influence on outbreak-related outcomes than overall scores [15]. Because of this, an analysis of the GHS Index suggests that adjusted analyses of the correlation between country scores and health outcomes at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels should be performed, as we did in the present study [15]. Finally, the GHS Index is not a predictive tool, and its conclusion remains that no country is adequately prepared to respond to epidemics or pandemics. Therefore, our results are limited to explaining whether countries with high GHS Index category and indicator levels have high Mpox rates.

The results of this study show that nonlinear relationships can be more complex than linear ones. For example, Finland, which has a high score in the GHS Index categories, has a low rate of Mpox cases, whereas Peru has an average score in the GHS Index categories and a high rate of Mpox cases. In addition, in the overall analysis, there was a high dispersion of the correlation coefficient between countries in Europe and the Americas. However, in the adjusted analysis by category and indicator, some variables were associated with the Mpox case rate. Adjusted analysis allows the identification of indicators explaining correlations, but sometimes the correlation may be influenced by variables not measured in the study. Finally, the R2 coefficient used to assess the proportion of variability in the dependent variable confirms that the model is better fitted for the countries of the region of the Americas.

5. Conclusions

In summary, countries with higher levels of emergency preparedness indicators on the GHS index (risk environment, AMR, risk communication, JEE and PVS, and adequacy of infrastructure) had higher Mpox rates. In the region of the Americas, countries with higher scores on indicators of laboratory systems strength and quality, and emergency response operation had higher Mpox rates. In the European region, countries with higher scores on indicators of antimicrobial resistance and infrastructure adequacy had higher Mpox rates. Finally, in other regions, countries with higher scores on indicators of trade and travel restrictions had a higher Mpox rates. These findings suggest that countries with higher health security capacity on the GHS index are better equipped to detect more cases of Mpox in the current outbreak. Therefore, a robust health infrastructure and preventive measures to ensure an accessible health system are critical to detecting Mpox cases. To improve our understanding of the role of capacities in preparing for and responding to an outbreak, countries should continue to measure health security capacities using the GHS Index.

Supporting information

S1 Table. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies.

(DOC)

pone.0307503.s001.doc (80KB, doc)
S2 Table. GHS Index category indicator variables selected for the study.

(DOCX)

pone.0307503.s002.docx (16.9KB, docx)

Data Availability

Data used as input into these analyses are publicly available at https://ghsindex.org/archive/ for global health security indices, and https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/ for Mpox cases.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gessain A, Nakoune E, Yazdanpanah Y. Monkeypox. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(19):1783–1793. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra2208860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ejaz H, Junaid K, Younas S, Abdalla AE, Bukhari SNA, Abosalif KOA, et al. Emergence and dissemination of monkeypox, an intimidating global public health problem. J Infect Public Health. 2022;15(10):1156–1165. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bunge EM, Hoet B, Chen L, Lienert F, Weidenthaler H, Baer LR, et al. The changing epidemiology of human monkeypox-A potential threat? A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(2):e0010141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yinka-Ogunleye A, Aruna O, Dalhat M, Ogoina D, McCollum A, Disu Y, et al. Outbreak of human monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017–18: a clinical and epidemiological report. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(8):872–879. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30294-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Health Emergency Dashboard. Monkeypox. Geneva: WHO 2022. Available online: https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/ (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  • 6.Laurenson-Schafer H, Sklenovská N, Hoxha A, Kerr SM, Ndumbi P, Fitzner J, et al. Description of the first global outbreak of mpox: an analysis of global surveillance data. Lancet Glob Health. 2023. Jul;11(7):e1012–e1023. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00198-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ramírez-Soto MC. Monkeypox Outbreak in Peru. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023. Jun 6;59(6):1096. doi: 10.3390/medicina59061096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO. WHO Director-General’s statement at the press conference following IHR Emergency Committee regarding the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox—23 July 2022. July 23, 2022. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-sstatement-on-the-press-conference-following-IHR-emergencycommittee-regarding-the-multi—country-outbreak-of-monkeypox—23-july-2022 (accessed January 17, 2024).
  • 9.Mitjà O, Ogoina D, Titanji BK, Galvan C, Muyembe JJ, Marks M, et al. Monkeypox. Lancet. 2023;401(10370):60–74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02075-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhang XS, Mandal S, Mohammed H, Turner C, Florence I, Walker J, et al. Transmission dynamics and effect of control measures on the 2022 outbreak of mpox among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in England: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024;24(1):65–74. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00451-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ji Y, Shao J, Tao B, Song H, Li Z, Wang J. Are we ready to deal with a global COVID-19 pandemic? Rethinking countries’ capacity based on the Global Health Security Index. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;106:289–294. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.03.089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rose SM, Paterra M, Isaac C, Bell J, Stucke A, Hagens A, et al. Analysing COVID-19 outcomes in the context of the 2019 Global Health Security (GHS) Index. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(12):e007581. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ledesma JR, Isaac CR, Dowell SF, Blazes DL, Essix GV, Budeski K, et al. Evaluation of the Global Health Security Index as a predictor of COVID-19 excess mortality standardised for under-reporting and age structure. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(7):e012203. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hasan MN, MohanaSundaram A, Bhattacharya P, Islam MA. Exploring the relationship between the Global Health Security Index and monkeypox: an analysis of preparedness and response capacities. IJS Global Health; 2023;6(4):e0229. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ravi SJ, Warmbrod KL, Mullen L, Meyer D, Cameron E, Bell J, et al. The value proposition of the global health security index. BMJ Glob Health 2020;5:e003648. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nuclear Threat Initiative, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, The Economist Intelligence Unit. The Global Health Security Index. GHS Index. Available online: https://www.ghsindex.org/ (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  • 17.Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.The World Bank. Population, total. Available in: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed on 25 May 2023)
  • 19.Razavi A, Erondu N, Okereke E. The Global Health Security Index: what value does it add? BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4):e002477. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ravi SJ, Meyer D, Cameron E, Nalabandian M, Pervaiz B, Nuzzo JB. Establishing a theoretical foundation for measuring global health security: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):954. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7216-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Abbey EJ, Khalifa BAA, Oduwole MO, Ayeh SK, Nudotor RD, Salia EL, et al. The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wong, Martin C.S. and Huang, Junjie and Wong, Sunny H. and Kwok, Kin-on and Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun, Is the Global Health Security (GHS) Index a Significant Factor Associated with COVID-19 Control? A Country Level Analysis (4/17/2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3582746 or 10.2139/ssrn.3582746 [DOI]
  • 23.Zhou N, Cheng Z, Zhang X, Lv C, Guo C, Liu H, et al. Global antimicrobial resistance: a system-wide comprehensive investigation using the Global One Health Index. Infect Dis Poverty. 2022;11(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s40249-022-01016-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jost CC, Machalaba C, Karesh WB, Mcdermott JJ, Beltran-Alcrudo D, Bett B, et al. Epidemic disease risks and implications for Veterinary Services. Rev Sci Tech. 2021;40(2):497–509. doi: 10.20506/rst.40.2.3240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nuzzo JB, Bell JA, Cameron EE. Suboptimal US Response to COVID-19 Despite Robust Capabilities and Resources. JAMA. 2020;324(14):1391–1392. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chang CL, McAleer M. Alternative Global Health Security Indexes for Risk Analysis of COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3161. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Moises Leon Juarez

24 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-19347High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of early detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

3. We note that Figure S1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

We inform you that your work has been reviewed by the reviewers. Based on their comments and observations, we consider that you need to make rigorous changes for its possible publication in a journal. Below, I send you some suggestions that should be considered according to the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer 1

It is a very well-documented and stated paper. However, a relevant previous paper proposes a relationship between monkeypox confirmed cases and deaths in a very similar period as the chosen by the one authors of this work (May 1, 2022, to May 15, 20,23). The authors of this paper found that the Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive linear relationship between total cases and total deaths with the GHSI. It is advisable to cite the direct aforegoing paper, which is considered to establish these relationships. Hasan MN, ArunSundar MS, Bhattacharya P, Islam A. Exploring the relationship between the Global Health Security Index and monkeypox: an analysis of preparedness and response capacities. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2023 Jul 1;6(4). https://doi.org/10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229

Reviewer 2

The manuscript by Ramirez-Soto and Arroyo Hernandez presents an interesting analysis of the correlations between the GHS index and Mpox cases in different countries. Although the study is intriguing, I have major concerns.

1. What were the criteria for normalization to a scale of 0 to 100?

2. In Table 1, does “RIQ” stand for “IQR” in Spanish?

3. Does the international abbreviation stand for “until”?

4. Provide a more detailed description of each variable considered for correlation, especially AMR.

5. Describe variables that might differ regarding health safety capacities in the GHS index, specifically those implemented for COVID-19 versus MPXV.

6. Improve the quality of the figures.

7. Another study has evaluated the GHS index and Mpox preparedness. The authors should justify the differences and the novelty of this study compared to the previous one. Compare the results with other analyses published in articles like DOI: 10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229 and earlier reports by the authors in Peru.

8. The authors should clearly state the limitations in the conclusions. The claim that countries with a high GHS index can successfully respond to Mpox outbreaks is not sufficiently supported by the correlation data presented. More evidence is needed to confirm this claim.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is a very well documented and stated paper. However, there is a relevant previous paper which propose to establish a relation between total monkeypox confirmed cases and deaths in a very similar period of time as the chosen by the authors of this work (May 1, 2022 to May 15, 2023). Authors of this paper found that Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive linear relationship between total cases and total deaths with the GHSI. It should be highly advisable to cite maybe the direct aforegoing paper which considered to establish these relationships. Hasan MN, ArunSundar MS, Bhattacharya P, Islam A. Exploring the relationship between the Global Health Security Index and monkeypox: an analysis of preparedness and response capacities. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2023 Jul 1;6(4). https://doi.org/10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Ramirez-Soto and Arroyo Hernandez presents an interesting analysis of the correlations between the GHS index and Mpox cases in different countries. Although the study is intriguing, I have major concerns.

1. What were the criteria for normalization to a scale of 0 to 100?

2. In Table 1, does “RIQ” stand for “IQR” in Spanish?

3. Does the international abbreviation stand for “until”?

4. Provide a more detailed description of each variable considered for correlation, especially AMR.

5. Describe variables that might differ regarding health safety capacities in the GHS index, specifically those implemented for COVID-19 versus MPXV.

6. Improve the quality of the figures.

7. Another study has evaluated the GHS index and Mpox preparedness. The authors should justify the differences and the novelty of this study compared to the previous one. Compare the results with other analyses published in articles like DOI: 10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229 and previous reports by the authors in Peru.

8. The authors should clearly state the limitations in the conclusions. The claim that countries with a high GHS index can successfully respond to Mpox outbreaks is not sufficiently supported by the correlation data presented. More evidence is needed to confirm this claim.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jorge Alberto Álvarez Díaz

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 26;19(7):e0307503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307503.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Jul 2024

Response to reviewers

Title of the article: High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of early detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional study

Reference number: PONE-D-24-19347

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you for your comments.

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

3. We note that Figure S1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

Response: Thank you for your comments. Figure S1 has been removed.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The references have been corrected.

Reviewer #1:

It is a very well-documented and stated paper. However, a relevant previous paper proposes a relationship between monkeypox confirmed cases and deaths in a very similar period as the chosen by the one authors of this work (May 1, 2022, to May 15, 20,23). The authors of this paper found that the Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive linear relationship between total cases and total deaths with the GHSI. It is advisable to cite the direct aforegoing paper, which is considered to establish these relationships. Hasan MN, ArunSundar MS, Bhattacharya P, Islam A. Exploring the relationship between the Global Health Security Index and monkeypox: an analysis of preparedness and response capacities. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2023 Jul 1;6(4). https://doi.org/10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229.

Response: Thank you for your comments. According Avi et al. The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(10):e003648. Drawing simple correlations with countries’ overall scores does not account for the fact that these scores are meant to capture capacities spanning the breadth of the health security life cycle, from outbreak prevention at the source, to early detection, to rapid response. In other words, overall scores summarise country capacities across all categories. However, countries with high overall scores may still have low category-level, indicator-level and sub-indicator-level scores that more strongly influence outbreak-associated outcomes. Therefore, we encourage users wishing to analyse correlations between country scores and health outcomes to examine scores at more granular levels, adjust model weights to reflect country contexts and priorities and consider more nuanced outcomes when analysing countries’ performances during outbreaks. In these context, studies of Hasan et al. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2023 Jul 1;6(4), and Ramírez-Soto MC. Monkeypox Outbreak in Peru. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Jun 6;59(6):1096, They only perform a correlation between the overall GHS index score and the Mpox case, and cannot represent the category, indicator and sub-indicator of the GHS index.

Therefore, we hypothesized that the GHS indicators of detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, compliance with international standards and risk environment could explain global and regional Mpox case rates (category and sub-indicators). Thus, we aimed to analyze the correlation between the GHS index and Mpox case rates in different countries and regions. The evaluation of the GHS on Mpox is critical for transmission control and will provide important insights into the relationships between the GHS index and Mpox cases rates. In addition, in Discussion section, Limitations and strengths, We explain as a strength of the study the analysis of indicators and sub-indicators “According to the GHS Index Report, the overall scores summarize a country's capacity across all categories, but countries with high overall scores may have low scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels. Therefore, scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels have a greater influence on outbreak-related outcomes than overall scores. Because of this, an analysis of the GHS Index suggests that adjusted analyses of the correlation between country scores and health outcomes at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels should be performed, as we did in the present study”.

We have also included a paragraph in the Introduction section on the limitations of the GHS index overall scores.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript by Ramirez-Soto and Arroyo Hernandez presents an interesting analysis of the correlations between the GHS index and Mpox cases in different countries. Although the study is intriguing, I have major concerns.

Comment 1. What were the criteria for normalization to a scale of 0 to 100?

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have explained these details in paragraph 2 of the Methods section “The overall score (0 to 100) for each country is a weighted sum of the scores in the six categories. The score for each category is given on a scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 represents the most favourable health security conditions, but does not mean that a country has a perfect national health security situation. A score of 0 is the least favourable condition, but does not imply a lack of capacity. Each category is standardized on the basis of the sum of its underlying indicators and sub-indicators, and a weight is assigned to each. The weights in the model are dynamic and can be changed by the users. To facilitate reproducible comparisons across countries, categories and indicators, measurements have been normalized to a scale of 0 to 100”.

Comment 2. In Table 1, does “RIQ” stand for “IQR” in Spanish?

Response: Thank you for your comments. The sentences in Results section has been corrected.

Comment 3. Does the international abbreviation stand for “until”?

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the manuscript we have not used the abbreviation “until”.

Comment 4. Provide a more detailed description of each variable considered for correlation, especially AMR.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In Table S2 is shown GHS Index indicator and sub-indicators variables selected for the study.

Comment 5. Describe variables that might differ regarding health safety capacities in the GHS index, specifically those implemented for COVID-19 versus MPXV.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We included the GHS index categories associated with COVID-19 mortality. We did not find any other studies evaluating GHS index categories and indicators with COVID-19 cases. In the case of Mpox, the two previous studies only evaluated the overall GHS index score, which is not representative of the categories and indicators and has limitations. To date, there have been no further analyses of the GHS index categories and indicators for monkeypox case rates. This is explained in paragraph 2 of the introduction.

Comment 6. Improve the quality of the figures.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The figures attached in the PDF are shown with high resolution.

Comment 7. Another study has evaluated the GHS index and Mpox preparedness. The authors should justify the differences and the novelty of this study compared to the previous one. Compare the results with other analyses published in articles like DOI: 10.1097/GH9.0000000000000229 and earlier reports by the authors in Peru.

Response: Thank you for your comments. According Avi et al. The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(10):e003648. Drawing simple correlations with countries’ overall scores does not account for the fact that these scores are meant to capture capacities spanning the breadth of the health security life cycle, from outbreak prevention at the source, to early detection, to rapid response. In other words, overall scores summarise country capacities across all categories. However, countries with high overall scores may still have low category-level, indicator-level and sub-indicator-level scores that more strongly influence outbreak-associated outcomes. Therefore, we encourage users wishing to analyse correlations between country scores and health outcomes to examine scores at more granular levels, adjust model weights to reflect country contexts and priorities and consider more nuanced outcomes when analysing countries’ performances during outbreaks. In these context, studies of Hasan et al. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2023 Jul 1;6(4), and Ramírez-Soto MC. Monkeypox Outbreak in Peru. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Jun 6;59(6):1096, They only perform a correlation between the overall GHS index score and the Mpox case, and cannot represent the category, indicator and sub-indicator of the GHS index.

Therefore, we hypothesized that the GHS indicators of detection, prevention, reporting, health system, rapid response, compliance with international standards and risk environment could explain global and regional Mpox case rates (category and sub-indicators). Thus, we aimed to analyze the correlation between the GHS index and Mpox case rates in different countries and regions. The evaluation of the GHS on Mpox is critical for transmission control and will provide important insights into the relationships between the GHS index and Mpox cases rates. In addition, in Discussion section, Limitations and strengths, We explain as a strength of the study the analysis of indicators and sub-indicators “According to the GHS Index Report, the overall scores summarize a country's capacity across all categories, but countries with high overall scores may have low scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels. Therefore, scores at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels have a greater influence on outbreak-related outcomes than overall scores. Because of this, an analysis of the GHS Index suggests that adjusted analyses of the correlation between country scores and health outcomes at the category, indicator and sub-indicator levels should be performed, as we did in the present study”.

We have also included a paragraph in the Introduction section on the limitations of the GHS index overall scores.

Comment 8. The authors should clearly state the limitations in the conclusions. The claim that countries with a high GHS index can successfully respond to Mpox outbreaks is not sufficiently supported by the correlation data presented. More evidence is needed to confirm this claim.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Conclusion has been corrected “These finding suggest that countries with higher health security capacity on the GHS index are better equipped to detect more cases of Mpox in the current outbreak. Therefore, a robust health infrastructure and preventive measures to ensure an accessible health system are critical to detecting Mpox cases. To improve our understanding of the role of capacities in preparing for and responding to an outbreak, countries should continue to measure health security capacities using the GHS Index”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_R1_Correct.docx

pone.0307503.s003.docx (21.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Moises Leon Juarez

8 Jul 2024

High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of early detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-24-19347R1

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Ramírez Soto

It is a pleasure to inform you about the decision made about his work: High Global Health Security Index is a determinant of aerial detection and response to monkeypox: A cross-sectional study". Based on the changes and recommendations that the reviewers made to your work, we have decided to accept your work for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Moises Leon Juarez

17 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-19347R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies.

    (DOC)

    pone.0307503.s001.doc (80KB, doc)
    S2 Table. GHS Index category indicator variables selected for the study.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307503.s002.docx (16.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_R1_Correct.docx

    pone.0307503.s003.docx (21.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data used as input into these analyses are publicly available at https://ghsindex.org/archive/ for global health security indices, and https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/ for Mpox cases.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES