---
title: "Tools to Evaluate Resilience of Public Health Emergency Preparedness in LMICs: Systematic Review P"
id: "bmj-open-6-availability-and-utility-of-tools-to-evaluate-resilience-of-public-health"
canonical_url: "https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-6-availability-and-utility-of-tools-to-evaluate-resilience-of-public-health"
content_type: "clinical_feed_article"
specialty: "General"
source_name: "BMJ Open"
source_url: "http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/8/e117619?rss=1"
published_at: "2026-08-31T10:16:00.000Z"
evidence_level: "Journal Feed"
license: "CC-BY-NC-4.0 / Informational Use"
---
# Tools to Evaluate Resilience of Public Health Emergency Preparedness in LMICs: Systematic Review P
## Provenance & Clinical Metadata
- **Canonical URL:** https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-6-availability-and-utility-of-tools-to-evaluate-resilience-of-public-health
- **Specialty:** [General](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- **Primary Source:** BMJ Open
- **Source URL:** [Original Journal Publication](http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/16/8/e117619?rss=1)
- **Published At:** 2026-08-31T10:16:00.000Z
- **Evidence Rating:** Journal Feed
## Executive GIST (TL;DR)
- Low- and middle-income countries (**LMICs**) face recurrent public health emergencies—infectious disease outbreaks, climate-related shocks and humanitarian crises—that reveal weaknesses in health system preparedness and response. - The concept of **resilience** is defined as the capacity of health systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from shocks; interest in resilience measurement is growing but no comprehensive synthesis of PHEPR resilience tools for LMICs exists. - The review aims to identify, describe and critically appraise existing tools and frameworks used to evaluate public health emergency preparedness and response (**PHEPR**) resilience, focusing on methodological robustness, availability and applicability to LMIC settings. - The protocol follows PRISMA-P 2015 and will report according to PRISMA 2020; the search will include PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO IRIS, Africa CDC repositories and relevant governmental and organisational platforms. - Eligible literature comprises peer-reviewed and grey literature in English from 2005–2025 that describe, develop, validate or apply PHEPR resilience assessment tools. - Two independent reviewers will perform screening, full-text review and data extraction using a piloted 24-item extraction form to ensure consistent capture of tool characteristics and evidence. - Methodological quality of empirical studies will be appraised with Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools; resilience instruments themselves will be evaluated using structured qualitative criteria addressing conceptual foundations, development methods, validation evidence and implementation characteristics. - Ethical approval is not required because the review uses publicly available literature. Dissemination plans include peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and policy briefs to inform future tool development and implementation in LMICs. - The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251243633).
## Clinical Analysis & Structured Key Points
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience recurrent public health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks, climate-related shocks and humanitarian crises, which expose persistent weaknesses in health system preparedness and response. Although resilience - defined as the capacity of health systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from shocks - has gained increasing attention, there is no comprehensive synthesis of tools specifically designed to evaluate the resilience of public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR), particularly in LMICs contexts. Objective To identify, describe and critically appraise existing tools and frameworks used to evaluate PHEPR resilience, and to assess their methodological robustness, availability and applicability to LMICs health systems. Methods This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement and will follow the PRISMA 2020 reporting guideline. A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS), Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention repositories and relevant governmental and organisational platforms. Eligible sources will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English between 2005 and 2025 that describe, develop, validate or apply PHEPR resilience assessment tools. Two reviewers will independently undertake screening, full-text review and data extraction using a piloted 24-item extraction form. Methodological quality of empirical studies will be appraised using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, while resilience assessment instruments will be evaluated using structured qualitative criteria examining their conceptual foundations, development methods, validation evidence and implementation characteristics Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not required because this review will use publicly available literature. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and policy briefs to inform future development and implementation of resilience assessment tools for public health emergency preparedness and response in LMICs. PROSPERO registration number CRD420251243633.
## Related Clinical Research

- [Fathers' perinatal mental health needs: qualitative insights from North East England and North Cum](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-6-understanding-fathers-perinatal-mental-health-and-well-being-support-needs-a.md)
- [Standardised Patient Teaching and Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning: Systematic Review Protocol](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/bmj-open-1-impact-of-the-standardised-patient-teaching-method-on-medical-students-clinical.md)
- [Post-occupancy evaluation of former residences of celebrities in Yangzhou using online reviews and](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-2-post-occupancy-evaluation-of-former-residences-of-celebrities-in-yangzhou-based.md)
- [Kurort Health Walking in a Forest: Short-Term Physiological and Psychological Effects](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/plos-one-3-physiological-and-psychological-outcomes-of-a-community-based-kurort-health.md)
- [Readers’ reactions: M.D. vs D.O., AI and physician autonomy, surrogacy, postpartum psychiatry, and](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/stat-news-0-opinion-what-stat-readers-think-about-m-d-vs-d-o-ai-in-medicine-surrogacy-and.md)

## Navigation
- [← Back to General Feed](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed/general.md)
- [← All Clinical Specialties](https://medichelpline.com/clinical-feed.md)
## Medical & Regulatory Disclaimer

> [!CAUTION]
> MedicHelpline content is structured for research, educational, and professional discovery purposes. It does not constitute individual medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.
> Always verify dosing, contraindications, and regulatory alerts against official product labeling and primary regulatory sources before clinical decision-making.