Abstract
Objectives
The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency conducts simulation training to enhance the response capabilities of Epidemiological Investigation and Response Teams (ERTs). We analyzed training demands among Central and Local ERTs following nine scenario-based training sessions in 2025.
Methods
A survey was administered to 269 participants: 97 training debriefing attendees on-site (November 28, 2025) and 172 Central ERTs online (December 1–5, 2025) using a self-developed questionnaire that covered respondent characteristics, training topics, and methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and group differences via chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests.
Results
The preferred topics among the 133 respondents (response rate 49.4%; 95 Central, 38 Local ERTs; 74.4% female; median age 43.0; 5.0 years’ experience) were respiratory (41.4%) diseases and water- and food-borne diseases (33.8%), and responses to mass gathering events (48.9%) and disaster events (46.6%). There was a significantly higher demand for diseases of unknown origin, non-communicable diseases, and mass gathering responses among Central ERTs. Conversely, Local ERTs prioritized training for water- and food-borne diseases and educational/healthcare facility outbreaks. Risk communication (46.6%) and risk assessment (45.9%) were equally prioritized by both groups, and problem-based learning (PBL, 57.1%) and field-linked practical training (51.9%) were the preferred methodologies.
Conclusions
Given the differing preferences reported, future training should be tailored to reflect each team’s mission. Tailored scenarios should be developed that would enable Local ERTs to focus on community-level educational/healthcare facility outbreaks, while Central ERTs would concentrate on complex cases requiring coordination with the competent ministries or precise etiological investigations. Finally, it is necessary to maintain PBL methods and strengthen capabilities in areas like risk communication and assessment.
Keywords: Epidemiological response, Simulation training, Problem-based learning, Needs assessment
Key messages
① What is known previously?
Scenario-based training is essential for Epidemiological Investigation and Response Teams (ERTs) to conduct rapid infectious disease response and etiological investigations effectively. In 2025, nine joint field trainings were held involving Central and Local ERTs and relevant ministries (Education, Defense, and Justice).
② What new information is presented?
Central and Local ERTs reported differing preferences. Central ERTs demanded scenarios requiring precise etiological investigations and multifaceted risk management for diseases of unknown origin, non-communicable diseases, and mass gatherings. Conversely, Local ERTs prioritized field-focused topics: water and food-borne diseases and educational/healthcare facility outbreaks.
③ What are implications?
Training should be tailored to reflect a given team’s mission. Tailored scenarios should enable Local ERTs to address community-level outbreaks (educational/healthcare facilities), whereas Central ERTs would concentrate on coordination with relevant ministries.
Introduction
The Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act defines an epidemiological investigation as the activity of ascertaining the scale of infectious disease patients and others and tracing and analyzing the source of infection. In addition, it stipulates that these activities are intended to block infectious diseases and prevent their spread. An epidemiological investigation is a key response activity for identifying the cause and interrupting transmission in the early stages of an infectious disease outbreak, and its prompt and systematic execution is crucial [1,2]. To this end, the relevant statutes specify the operation of the Central Epidemiological Investigation and Response Teams (ERTs) and Local ERTs, composed of at least 30 members at the central government and at least 10 members each at local governments (city/province and municipal/county/district) [3]. This institutional framework is premised on infectious disease response being conducted through group-based collaboration among ERTs, and the expertise and joint response capacity of these teams are important in the infectious disease response process.
Epidemiological investigation personnel must have not only knowledge of infectious diseases but also the capacity to coordinate on-site situations and proactively perform joint response activities during team-based collaboration. To this end, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) operates scenario-based call-up training using scenarios that simulate actual outbreak situations, as well as joint training with relevant ministries (the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Education, and the Korea Correctional Service under the Ministry of Justice) and local governments. In 2023 and 2024, the Central ERTs call-up training was conducted twice a year as scenario-based simulation drills. The 2023 training scenarios covered outbreaks of human infection with avian influenza and infectious disease outbreaks during mass gathering events, while the 2024 scenarios covered a domestic measles outbreak associated with imported cases and the importation and subsequent community transmission of a novel infectious disease. In contrast, during the same period, joint training with the relevant ministries was conducted as lecture-based joint workshops to share joint response cases. For example, in 2024, the Ministry of National Defense covered measles and tuberculosis, while the Ministry of Education covered pertussis [4,5].
In 2025, to enhance the effectiveness of the training, participating organizations were expanded, and to strengthen the quality of training design and operation, customized scenarios simulating actual infectious disease outbreak sites were independently developed and applied. Based on this strategy, a total of nine sessions of field epidemiological investigation training were conducted as full-scale scenario-based simulation drills. Specifically, first, one session of the Central ERTs call-up training focused on a suspected Disease X situation in a healthcare facility. Second, a total of three joint drills with relevant ministries introduced ministry-specific customized scenarios: the Ministry of Education addressed respiratory infectious diseases in schools, the Ministry of National Defense addressed waterborne and foodborne infectious diseases in military units and local communities, and the newly joined Korea Correctional Service under the Ministry of Justice addressed suspected respiratory infectious disease situations in correctional facilities [6-8]. Third, training for Local ERTs was conducted on a regular basis, and the five Regional Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (RCDCP) conducted training using measles outbreak scenarios reflecting local conditions [9].
However, to enhance the field applicability of future training, it is necessary to review scenarios and operational approaches that reflect the practical demands of the training participants. Therefore, this study conducted a survey to identify the specific demands for training topics and methods.
Methods
1. Study Subjects and Survey
This study was conducted based on the results of a survey administered after the completion of field epidemiological investigation training. After the completion of a total of nine sessions of field epidemiological investigation training conducted in 2025, a survey was administered to 97 members of the Central ERTs and Local ERTs who attended the final report meeting and 172 members of the Central ERTs who did not attend the final report meeting (excluding the 16 members of the Central ERTs who attended the final report meeting out of a total of 188 members).
The survey was conducted online using Google Forms (Google LLC.) from November 28 to December 5, 2025. Attendees of the final report meeting (November 28, 2025) completed the survey on-site that day. For the Central ERTs members who did not attend the final report meeting, the same questionnaire was distributed and administered over a 5-day period (December 1 to 5, 2025). Prior to survey administration, an explanation of the purpose of the survey and the use of the data was provided, and informed consent to participate was obtained. No personally identifiable information was collected.
The questionnaire was developed by the research team to reflect the purpose and characteristics of field epidemiological investigation training. It consisted of 12 items across three domains. The respondents’ general characteristics domain assessed sex, age, affiliated institution, assigned duties, and work experience. The training topics domain consisted of topics on the type of infectious disease, outbreak situation (setting), and competencies related to infectious disease response to be included in future training, in order to identify specific training demands. The training methods domain included information on preferred training methods, training duration, and discussion group size and members.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
The survey was set to require responses to all items for submission to prevent missing responses. Descriptive statistical analysis of the collected data was performed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.0.14332.21016; Microsoft Corp.) to identify the general characteristics and demands of the participants. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables as mean (range) or median (interquartile range [IQR]). For questions allowing multiple responses, each item was aggregated independently.
Inferential statistical analysis was conducted using Jamovi (version 2.4.11.0; The Jamovi Project) to test for differences in training demands by ERTs. A chi-square test was conducted to test for differences in proportions between groups, and Fisher’s exact test was applied when the expected frequency was less than 5. The statistical significance level was set at 0.05 for all tests.
Results
1. Survey Respondent Characteristics
Of a total of 269 survey participants, 133 responded, for an overall response rate of 49.4%. The respondents included 95 (71.4%) from the Central ERTs and 38 (28.6%) from the Local ERTs. Most respondents were female (99, 74.4%), and the overall median age was 43 years (IQR: 36–47 years). The median work experience was 5 years (IQR: 2–8 years), with 5 years (IQR: 4–9 years) for the Central ERTs and 3 years (IQR: 1–5 years) for the Local ERTs. By affiliated institution, the most common was the KDCA (60, 45.1%), followed by the RCDCP (35, 26.3%), and city/county/district (si/gun/gu) (29, 21.8%). The most common primary duty was infectious disease response (86, 64.7%), followed by infectious disease surveillance, administration, education and training, analysis and research, and laboratory diagnosis (Table 1).
Table 1. General characteristics of the participants.
| Category | Total (n=133) | Central ERTs (n=95) | Local ERTs (n=38) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 34 (25.6) | 28 (29.5) | 6 (15.8) |
| Female | 99 (74.4) | 67 (70.5) | 32 (84.2) |
| Age (yr) | |||
| Mean (range) | 41.9 (25.0–58.0) | 41.3 (25.0–56.0) | 43.3 (27.0–58.0) |
| Median (IQR) | 43.0 (35.7–47.0) | 42.0 (35.5–46.0) | 44.0 (36.3–51.5) |
| Experience (years) | |||
| Mean (range) | 6.8 (0.0–36.0) | 7.0 (0.0–36.0) | 6.4 (0.0–35.0) |
| Median (IQR) | 5.0 (2.0–8.0) | 5.0 (4.0–9.0) | 3.0 (1.0–4.8) |
| Affiliations, n (%) | |||
| Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency | 60 (45.1) | 60 (63.2) | - |
| Regional Center for Disease Control and Prevention | 35 (26.3) | 29 (30.5) | - |
| Provincial/metropolitan city government | 5 (13.2) | - | 5 (13.2) |
| District/county/city government | 29 (21.8) | - | 29 (76.3) |
| Center for Infectious Disease Control and Prevention | 4 (3.0) | - | 4 (10.5) |
| Major dutiesa), n (%) | |||
| Response | 86 (64.7) | 52 (54.7) | 34 (89.5) |
| Surveillance | 53 (39.8) | 43 (45.3) | 10 (26.3) |
| Administration | 38 (28.6) | 30 (31.6) | 8 (21.1) |
| Education/training | 35 (26.3) | 29 (30.5) | 6 (15.8) |
| Analysis/research | 24 (18.0) | 23 (24.2) | 1 (2.6) |
| Laboratory diagnosis | 5 (3.8) | 4 (4.2) | 1 (2.6) |
| Othersb) | 14 (10.5) | 14 (14.7) | 0 (0.0) |
ERTs=Epidemiological investigation and Response Teams; IQR=interquartile range. a)Multiple responses were allowed. b)Other duties include quarantine (4), general administration (4), chronic diseases (2), immunization (2), non-communicable health hazards (1), and international cooperation (1).
2. Training Topics
The types of infectious diseases requiring training were respiratory infectious diseases (n=55, 41.4%), waterborne and foodborne infectious diseases (n=45, 33.8%), imported infectious diseases (n=37, 27.8%), diseases of unknown origin (n=35, 26.3%), and emerging infectious diseases (n=31, 23.3%). In addition to infectious diseases, responses for non-communicable diseases (n=13, 9.8%) were also identified (Table 2). Regarding differences in training topic demands by group, the demands for training on diseases of unknown origin (32.6% vs. 10.5%) and non-communicable diseases (13.7% vs. 0.0%) were significantly higher in the Central ERTs than in the Local ERTs (p=0.009 and 0.019, respectively). In contrast, the need for training on waterborne and foodborne infectious diseases was significantly higher in the Local ERTs (60.5%) than in the Central ERTs (23.2%) (p<0.001). Although there was a high demand for training on respiratory infectious diseases (Central ERTs 42.1%, Local ERTs 39.5%; p=0.781) and imported infectious diseases (Central ERTs 32.6%, Local ERTs 15.8%; p=0.050), there were no significant differences in the demands between the two groups (Table 2).
Table 2. Training subject demands by affiliation.
| Category | Total (n=133) |
Central ERTs (n=95) | Local ERTs (n=38) | p-valuea) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topics of infectious diseaseb) | Respiratory infectious diseases | 55 (41.4) | 40 (42.1) | 15 (39.5) | 0.781 |
| Waterborne and food-borne diseases | 45 (33.8) | 22 (23.2) | 23 (60.5) | <0.001 | |
| Imported infectious diseases | 37 (27.8) | 31 (32.6) | 6 (15.8) | 0.050 | |
| Diseases of unknown origin | 35 (26.3) | 31 (32.6) | 4 (10.5) | 0.009 | |
| Emerging infectious diseases | 31 (23.3) | 22 (23.2) | 9 (23.7) | 0.948 | |
| Healthcare-associated infections | 27 (20.3) | 19 (20.0) | 8 (21.1) | 0.892 | |
| Vector-borne diseases | 26 (19.5) | 18 (18.9) | 8 (21.1) | 0.782 | |
| Zoonotic diseases | 22 (16.5) | 19 (20.0) | 3 (7.9) | 0.090 | |
| Sexually transmitted infections | 11 (8.3) | 6 (6.3) | 5 (13.2) | 0.293 | |
| Non-communicable diseases | 13 (9.8) | 13 (13.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0.019 | |
| Outbreak settingb) | Mass gatherings | 65 (48.9) | 54 (56.8) | 11 (28.9) | 0.004 |
| Disaster areas | 62 (46.6) | 43 (45.3) | 19 (50.0) | 0.621 | |
| Educational facilities | 30 (22.6) | 16 (16.8) | 14 (36.8) | 0.013 | |
| Healthcare institutions | 28 (21.1) | 15 (15.8) | 13 (34.2) | 0.019 | |
| Accommodation facilities | 23 (17.3) | 13 (13.7) | 10 (26.3) | 0.082 | |
| General public facilities | 19 (14.3) | 16 (16.8) | 3 (7.9) | 0.183 | |
| Workplaces | 18 (13.5) | 13 (13.7) | 5 (13.2) | 0.936 | |
| Restaurants | 17 (12.8) | 9 (9.5) | 8 (21.1) | 0.087 | |
| Religious facilities | 10 (7.5) | 9 (9.5) | 1 (2.6) | 0.280 | |
| Military ships | 18 (13.5) | 14 (14.7) | 4 (10.5) | 0.521 | |
| Military bases | 17 (12.8) | 13 (13.7) | 4 (10.5) | 0.777 | |
| Correctional facilities | 16 (12.0) | 14 (14.7) | 2 (5.3) | 0.153 | |
| Additional curriculum for trainingb) | Crisis communication and media response | 62 (46.6) | 41 (46.1) | 21 (47.7) | 0.379 |
| Risk assessment | 61 (45.9) | 45 (50.6) | 16 (36.4) | 0.350 | |
| Data analysis and report writing | 38 (28.6) | 26 (29.2) | 12 (27.3) | 0.627 | |
| Team building | 33 (24.8) | 25 (28.1) | 8 (18.2) | 0.128 | |
| Conflict management | 23 (17.3) | 20 (22.5) | 6 (13.6) | 0.240 | |
| Interview skills | 26 (19.5) | 13 (14.6) | 10 (22.7) | 0.468 | |
| General education | 13 (9.8) | 11 (12.4) | 2 (4.5) | 0.108 | |
Unit: n (%). ERTs=Epidemiological investigation and Response Teams. a)p-values were calculated using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. b)Multiple responses were allowed.
3. Outbreak Setting of Training
Demand for training by outbreak setting was the highest for mass gatherings (n=65, 48.9%), followed by disaster areas (n=62, 46.6%), educational facilities (n=30, 22.6%), healthcare institutions (n=28, 21.1%), and accommodation facilities (n=23, 17.3%). Additionally, demand for training in restricted-access facilities such as military ships (n=18, 13.5%), military bases (n=17, 12.8%), and correctional facilities (n=16, 12.0%) was also identified (Table 2). Regarding intergroup differences in training demand by outbreak setting, demand for mass gathering response scenarios was significantly higher in the Central ERTs (56.8%) than in the Local ERTs (28.9%) (p=0.004). In contrast, demands for training on educational facilities (36.8% vs. 16.8%) and healthcare institutions (34.2% vs. 15.8%) were significantly higher in the Local ERTs than in the Central ERTs (p=0.013 and 0.019, respectively). For disaster areas, demand was high in both groups (Central ERTs 45.3%, Local ERTs 50.0%; p=0.621); however, the intergroup difference was not significant (Table 2).
4. Additional Curriculum for Training
The need for competencies related to infectious disease response was the highest for crisis communication and media relations at 62 respondents (46.6%), followed by risk assessment (n=61, 45.9%), data analysis and report writing (n=38, 28.6%), team building (n=33, 24.8%), interviewing techniques (n=26, 19.5%), and conflict management (n=23, 17.3%) (Table 2). A comparison of demands by ERTs revealed no significant differences between the two groups in any of the competency items related to infectious disease response, including crisis communication and media relations (Central ERTs 46.1%, Local ERTs 47.7%; p=0.379) and risk assessment (Central ERTs 50.6%, Local ERTs 36.4%; p=0.350) (Table 2).
5. Training Methods
Regarding training methods, problem-based learning (PBL) was most common (n=76, 57.1%), followed by field training (n=69, 51.9%). For discussion group composition, the most common opinion was that infectious disease response personnel should be included (n=76 , 57.1%), followed by external experts (n=56, 42.1%), infection control professionals (n=52, 39.1%), ERT leaders (n=47, 35.3%), laboratory specialists (n=41, 30.8%), senior epidemiologists (≥8 years of experience) (n=40, 30.1%), administrative staff (n=36, 27.1%), and healthcare professionals (n=35, 26.3%). The most common opinion was that a discussion group size of 4–6 people was appropriate (n=99, 74.4%). The preferred training duration was 1 day (n=57, 42.9%), followed by 2 days (n=49, 36.8%) (Table 3).
Table 3. Needs for training methodologies and operations (n=133).
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Training methodsa) | |
| Problem-based learning | 76 (57.1) |
| Field-linked practical training | 69 (51.9) |
| Roleplay | 40 (30.1) |
| Metaverse-based virtual training | 26 (19.5) |
| Mock interviews | 14 (10.5) |
| (Others) Guideline-based education | 1 (0.8) |
| Discussion group size (n) | |
| ≤3 | 12 (9.0) |
| 4–6 | 99 (74.4) |
| 7–9 | 20 (15.0) |
| ≥10 | 2 (1.5) |
| Discussion group compositiona) | |
| Infectious disease response personnel | 76 (57.1) |
| External experts | 56 (42.1) |
| Infection control professionals | 52 (39.1) |
| Epidemiological Investigation and Response Team leaders | 47 (35.3) |
| Laboratory specialists | 41 (30.8) |
| Senior epidemiologists (≥8 years of experience) | 40 (30.1) |
| Administrative staff | 36 (27.1) |
| Healthcare professionals | 35 (26.3) |
| (Others) Communication experts | 1 (0.8) |
| Training duration (day) | |
| Half | 15 (11.3) |
| 1 | 57 (42.9) |
| 2 | 49 (36.8) |
| 3 | 8 (6.0) |
| 4 | 2 (1.5) |
| 5 | 2 (1.5) |
Unit: n (%). a)Multiple responses were allowed.
Discussion
A survey of the Central and the Local ERTs to identify detailed demands for field epidemiological investigation training found significant differences in preferred training topics and training settings according to the work characteristics of their respective organizations. The Central ERTs preferred scenarios requiring multifaceted crisis management, such as infectious diseases of unknown origin, non-communicable diseases, and mass gathering events, whereas the Local ERTs preferred scenarios with a greater emphasis on community-level field response, such as waterborne and foodborne infectious diseases and outbreaks in educational facilities and healthcare institutions. In terms of competencies related to infectious disease response, both groups showed a high demand for crisis communication, media relations, and risk assessment. There was a high demand for participatory training methods such as PBL and field training. Operationally, respondents preferred short-term courses of 1–2 days conducted in multidisciplinary small groups of 4–6 members.
These differences in training topic demands may stem from differences in the work characteristics of their respective organizations. Therefore, in future training planning, joint training to strengthen the shared competencies of the central and local ERTs should be maintained, while a tailored dual-track strategy that reflects each organization’s specific characteristics may be needed. Local ERTs should conduct practice-oriented training on topics that occur frequently in the community, whereas the central should implement training specialized in strengthening crisis management capabilities for inter-ministerial coordination and in-depth epidemiological investigations.
Among the competencies related to infectious disease response, demand was high across both groups for crisis communication and media relations, as well as risk assessment. This finding suggests that the role of ERT members is expanding beyond mere technical investigation into coordinating and managing on-site situations. Furthermore, this finding indicates that ERT members are keenly aware of their responsibility for the overall field response and strongly recognize the need for training to build the corresponding professional competencies. In particular, as experienced during the coronavirus disease 2019 response, rapid and transparent on-site crisis communication served as a key disease control measure that was as important as interrupting transmission in preventing the spread of inaccurate information and securing public trust in disease control and prevention policies [10]. In addition, the risk assessment required of ERTs refers to an on-site situational assessment that comprehensively considers factors such as facility structure, the scale of exposure, and the potential for further transmission at infectious disease outbreak sites. Therefore, future training should place greater emphasis on crisis management, communication, and risk assessment, in addition to epidemiological investigation capabilities, to strengthen practitioners’ confidence in field response.
Regarding training methods, there was a high preference for PBL and field training. This finding indicates that trainees desire an active learning structure that reflects actual outbreak situations. The PBL approach has been widely proven effective in simultaneously cultivating critical thinking and team-based collaboration by having learners analyze real-world issues through scenarios similar to actual outbreak situations [11,12]. These demands from practitioners align with recent domestic and international trends in epidemiological investigation training that emphasize strengthening field competencies. The World Health Organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network operates scenario-based simulation training with multidisciplinary teams as its core educational approach [13]. In addition, the Field Epidemiology Training Program guidelines allocate 75% of total training time to field training and recommend the use of case studies and practical exercises, rather than didactic lectures alone, to promote peer learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving [14]. In the Republic of Korea, practical field response capabilities of epidemiological investigators were also shown to improve significantly after one-day (7-hour) scenario-based simulation training conducted in multidisciplinary small groups of 7–8 participants [15]. Taken together, short-term, small-group PBL training is an effective approach for strengthening field response capabilities. Therefore, based on this domestic and international empirical evidence, future field epidemiological investigation training should be systematically developed into a standard model for national infectious disease response training based on field-oriented, short-term intensive training.
The limitations of this study are as follows. First, because this study was based on the results of a single cross-sectional survey conducted after the completion of all training in 2025, the findings were limited in their generalizability as the long-term and universal training demands of the entire ERTs. Second, because the survey response rate was below 50% (49.4%), the possibility of selection bias cannot be excluded, whereby the views of nonrespondents were not captured, and the demands of respondents with certain characteristics were overrepresented. Third, because the study relied on a self-reported survey, discrepancies may exist between respondents’ subjectively perceived demands and the objective competencies required for actual field response. Fourth, because only univariate analysis was conducted to compare differences in training demands between groups, the analysis did not statistically control for other confounding variables that could affect training demands, such as work experience or age, which differed between the two groups.
Despite these limitations, this study is meaningful in that it empirically identified directions for improving the future training system by incorporating the practical demands of field practitioners. In addition, to enhance training effectiveness, the KDCA is implementing practical training based on these findings, reflecting differences in work characteristics between the Central and the Local ERTs. Specifically, in the 2026 training program, risk assessment capabilities were substantially strengthened by combining site visits to special facilities that are typically difficult to access, such as military ships, for the Central ERTs. In scenario-based simulation training, crisis communication was also reinforced along with institution-specific problem-solving processes.
Going forward, the KDCA plans to continue providing field-oriented, customized training tailored to the operational characteristics of each ERTs. In this process, assessments for ongoing demands should be conducted to identify specific field demands, and the training program should continue to be revised and refined accordingly. Ultimately, maintaining a PBL-based participatory approach while strengthening core competencies such as crisis communication could contribute to training specialized personnel capable of responding rapidly and flexibly to changing patterns of infectious disease outbreaks.
Acknowledgments
None.
Declarations
Ethics Statement: Not applicable.
Funding Source: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: YYK, EKK. Data curation: YYK. Formal analysis: YYK. Investigation: YYK, MY, JL, HKS. Methodology: YYK, MY, JL, HKS. Project administration: YYK, EKK. Supervision: EKK. Validation: YYK, EKK. Visualization: YYK. Writing – original draft: YYK. Writing – review & editing: YYK, EKK.
References
- 1.Korean Law Information Center, author. Infectious disease control and prevention act; article 2 (definitions) [Internet] Ministry of Government Legislation; 2025. [cited 2026 Jun 17]. Available from: https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2§ion=lawNm&query=Infectious+Disease+Control+and+Prevention+Act&x=55&y=26#liBgcolor1 . [Google Scholar]
- 2.Korean Law Information Center, author. Infectious disease control and prevention act; article 18 (epidemiological investigation) [Internet] Ministry of Government Legislation; 2025. [cited 2026 Jun 17]. Available from: https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2§ion=lawNm&query=Infectious+Disease+Control+and+Prevention+Act&x=55&y=26#liBgcolor1 . [Google Scholar]
- 3.Korean Law Information Center, author. Enforcement decree of the infectious disease control and prevention act; article 15 (composition of epidemiological investigation and response teams) [Internet] Ministry of Government Legislation; 2026. [cited 2026 Jun 17]. Available from: https://law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2§ion=lawNm&query=Enforcement+Decree+of+the+Infectious+Disease+Control+and+Prevention+Act&x=9&y=28#liBgcolor0 . [Google Scholar]
- 4.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), author 2023 KDCA white paper [White paper] KDCA; 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), author 2024 KDCA white paper [White paper] KDCA; 2025. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Press Release (April 29 2025). Joint infectious disease response training by KDCA, Ministry of Education, and local governments to ensure a safe educational environment. [cited 2026 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/kdca/2847/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGa2RjYSUyRjQxJTJGMjE1MjM5JTJGYXJ0Y2xWaWV3LmRvJTNGcGFzc3dvcmQlM0QlMjZyZ3NCZ25kZVN0ciUzRCUyNmZpbmRPcG53cmQlM0QlMjZmaW5kV29yZCUzRCVFQSVCMCU5MCVFQyU5NyVCQyVFQiVCMyU5MSUyNnJnc0VuZGRlU3RyJTNEJTI2ZmluZFR5cGUlM0RzaiUyNmZpbmRDbFNlcSUzRCUyNnBhZ2UlM0Q4JTI2 .
- 7.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Press Release (July 9 2025). Guardians of a healthy nation! The KDCA, the Ministry of National Defense, and Local Governments unite for infectious disease training. [cited 2026 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/kdca/2847/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGa2RjYSUyRjQxJTJGMjE1MzIxJTJGYXJ0Y2xWaWV3LmRvJTNGcGFzc3dvcmQlM0QlMjZyZ3NCZ25kZVN0ciUzRCUyNmZpbmRPcG53cmQlM0QlMjZmaW5kV29yZCUzRCVFQSVCMCU5MCVFQyU5NyVCQyVFQiVCMyU5MSUyNnJnc0VuZGRlU3RyJTNEJTI2ZmluZFR5cGUlM0RzaiUyNmZpbmRDbFNlcSUzRCUyNnBhZ2UlM0Q2JTI2 .
- 8.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Press Release (November 14 2025). First joint infectious disease response training by KDCA, Ministry of Justice Correctional Service, and local governments to strengthen practical preparedness. [cited 2026 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/kdca/2847/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGa2RjYSUyRjQxJTJGMjE1NDY3JTJGYXJ0Y2xWaWV3LmRvJTNGcGFzc3dvcmQlM0QlMjZyZ3NCZ25kZVN0ciUzRCUyNmZpbmRPcG53cmQlM0QlMjZmaW5kV29yZCUzRCVFQSVCNSU5MCVFQyVBMCU5NSVFQiVCMyVCOCVFQiVCNiU4MCUyNnJnc0VuZGRlU3RyJTNEJTI2ZmluZFR5cGUlM0RzaiUyNmZpbmRDbFNlcSUzRCUyNnBhZ2UlM0QxJTI2 .
- 9.Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Press Release (June 9 2025). Introduction of field-based epidemiological investigation training for local governments to strengthen frontline infectious disease response capacity. [cited 2026 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/kdca/2847/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGa2RjYSUyRjQxJTJGMjE1Mjc5JTJGYXJ0Y2xWaWV3LmRvJTNGcGFzc3dvcmQlM0QlMjZyZ3NCZ25kZVN0ciUzRCUyNmZpbmRPcG53cmQlM0QlMjZmaW5kV29yZCUzRCVFQyU5NyVBRCVFRCU5NSU5OSVFQyVBMSVCMCVFQyU4MiVBQyVFQiVCMCU5OCUyNnJnc0VuZGRlU3RyJTNEJTI2ZmluZFR5cGUlM0RzaiUyNmZpbmRDbFNlcSUzRCUyNnBhZ2UlM0QxJTI2 .
- 10.You J. Lessons from South Korea's COVID-19 policy response. Am Rev Public Adm. 2020;50(6-7):801–8. doi: 10.1177/0275074020943708. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kong LN, Qin B, Zhou YQ, Mou SY, Gao HM. The effectiveness of problem-based learning on development of nursing students' critical thinking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:458–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996;68:3–12. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219966804. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.World Health Organization (WHO), author Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) strategy 2022-2026 implementation plan. WHO; 2024. p. 10. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Koyie SL, Muehlen M, Dhand N, Perrocheau A. A scoping review on how field epidemiology training programs are addressing regional and global health priorities. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1490125. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1490125.4cacea530f2c4a14ae342000141a9598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yu M, Kim EK, Kim K, et al. Development and evaluation of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency's scenario-based training program for effective response to emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2025;16:373–80. doi: 10.24171/j.phrp.2025.0103.c031dba73e664d7da72bb014206d989f [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]