Public health response to disasters and crises: setting the agenda for effective action

Public health response to disasters and crises: setting the agenda for effective action

Disasters and large-scale emergencies, once seen as epi-
sodic disruptions,

Disasters and large-scale emergencies, once seen as epi-
sodic disruptions, are now a persistent and escalating

feature of the global landscape [1]. From the prolonged
consequences of pandemics to the accelerating impacts of
climate-related events and armed conflict, the burden on
public health systems has reached a scale and complexity

that traditional models of emergency response are no lon-
ger sufficient to absorb [2]. What was once exceptional is

now endemic, and public health must adapt.
Recent years have made it impossible to ignore the

structural and systemic nature of the health conse-
quences associated with crises. Whether dealing with

direct trauma, the collapse of routine services, or the cas-
cading effects on mental health and chronic disease man-
agement, health systems are being asked to deliver more,

faster, with fewer resources, and under increasingly
unpredictable conditions [3]. These challenges expose
longstanding inequalities in health access and outcomes,
and test the ability of institutions to coordinate, scale,
and adapt in real time.
A critical but often overlooked challenge is what might
be termed the implementation fallacy, the assumption
that the mere existence of policy frameworks, protocols,
or strategic plans guarantees operational readiness. Too
often, readiness is measured by the presence of plans
rather than by tested capacity or the ability to adapt in
the face of systemic disruption [4, 5]. In practice, it is
the mismatch between formal preparedness and actual
performance under pressure that determines outcomes.

Krzysztof Goniewicz1*

2025

Peri Irawan

PDF

ENGLISH

TEXT