The changes in e-SPAR capacity scores between 2019 and 2020
The 2019 and 2020 e-SPAR scores can be seen in Figure 1. Among all 154 countries (part A), the average of 11 e-SPAR capacity scores as well as the scores for each capacity in 2020 were higher than their respective scores in 2019. The range of scores increased from 2019 to 2020 is from 0.13 to 5.04. From the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the average score of 11 capacities and the scores of all individual items in 2020 were significantly different from the score in 2019, except capacities about Zoonotic events and the human-animal interface, Food Safety, and Human Resources (p>0.05). Next, among 98 countries whose scores increased (part B), the Wilcoxon signed-rank test result showed that the average score of the 11 capacities increased significantly from 2019 to 2020. Risk communication, National Health Emergency Framework, and Ports of entry were the 3 capacities that mostly increased (p<0.05). However, the capacity of Zoonotic events and the human-animal interface was the only capacity that was not significantly changed during the pandemic (p>0.05). Meanwhile, among 56 countries whose scores did not improve (part C), the Wilcoxon signed-rank test results showed the average score of the 11 capacities decreased significantly, as well as the capacity about National IHR focal point function, Food Safety, and Risk Communication (p<0.05).
Comparisons of COVID-19 CFR, countries income level, HDI, CL, and GE among overall countries, countries whose score increased and not increased were shown in Table 1. Based on country income level, among the countries that experienced an increase in scores, the majority were lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) (37.7%), while the high-income countries (HICs) and low-income countries (LICs) were the least with 18.4% each. On the contrary, HICs were the majority among countries whose scores did not increase (46.4%). Similar to the distribution in-country income level, countries with medium development status were the group that mostly (28.6%) experienced an increase in e-SPAR scores during the pandemic. Meanwhile, countries with very high development status were the majority in the group of countries whose scores did not increase (55.4%) in 2020 compared to the previous year.
Next, for civil liberties status, most countries within the group of countries whose scores increased during the pandemic were “partially free” countries (38.8%), followed by “free” countries (34.7%), and the least was “not free” countries (26.5%). Meanwhile, among the countries whose scores did not increase during the pandemic, most of them were “free” countries (46.4%). Then, for government effectiveness, most of the countries whose score increased during the pandemic had weak GE (66.3%) while most of the countries whose score did not increase had a strong GE (67.9%). Meanwhile, for CFR of COVID-19, 64% of the countries in each group had low CFR.
Part-A showed the scores of the overall countries (n=154), while Part-B showed the scores of countries whose scores increased (n=98), and Part-C showed the scores of countries whose scores did not increase (n=56);
p<0.05* p=0.05** for comparison between the e-SPAR score in 2019 and 2020
Associations between countries’ changes of e-SPAR scores with HDI, CL, GE, and CFR were shown in Table 2. From the table, it can be seen that Model 1 and 2 were able to describe the changes of e-SPAR score among 154 countries (R=0.378, F=5.209, p=0.000) as well as among 98 countries whose score increased (R=0.45, F=5.907, p=0.000) significantly, while Model 3 was not (R=0.249, F=0.843, p=0.504). In Model 1, of the four variables, COVID-19’s CFR was the only factor that significantly affected the changes of e-SPAR scores during the pandemic in 154 countries (t= -2.635, p=0.009). And GE was also potentially associated with the score changes (t= - 1.977, p=0.050). Similarly, in Model 2, COVID-19’s CFR was the only variable that significantly affected the changes of e-SPAR scores during the pandemic among score-increased countries (t=-2.036, p=0.045).
Table 1
Comparisons of COVID-19 CFR, countries income level, HDI, CL, and GE among overall countries, countries whose score increased and not increased
| Overall | Capacity increased | Capacity not increased | |
n=154 (%) | n=98 (%) | n=56 (%) | Chi-square |
CFR of COVID-19 | | | | |
Low | 99 (64.3) | 63 (64.3) | 36 (64.3) | x2 | p-value | Phi/ Cramer’s V |
High | 55 (35.7) | 35 (35.7) | 20 (35.7) | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
INCOME LEVEL | | | | | | |
LICs | 24 (15.6) | 18 (18.4) | 6 (10.7) | x2 | p-value | Phi/ Cramer’s V |
LMICs | 46 (29.9) | 37 (37.7) | 9 (16.1) | 16.793 | 0.001 | 0.33 |
HMICs | 40 (25.9) | 25 (25.5) | 15 (26.8) | | | |
HICs | 44 (28.6) | 18 (18.4) | 26 (46.4) | | | |
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX | | | |
Low | 32 (20.8) | 24 (24.5) | 8 (14.3) | x2 | p-value | Phi/ Cramer’s V |
Medium | 32 (20.8) | 28 (28.6) | 4 (7.1) | 20.898 | 0.000 | 0.368 |
High | 37 (24) | 24 (24.5) | 13 (23.2) | | | |
Very high | 53 (34.4) | 22 (22.4) | 31 (55.4) | | | |
CIVIL LIBERTIES | | | | | | |
Not free | 41 (26.6) | 26 (26.5) | 15 (26.8) | x2 | p-value | Phi/ Cramer’s V |
Partially free | 53 (34.4) | 38 (38.8) | 16 (34.8) | 2.749 | 0.253 | 0.134 |
Free | 60 (39) | 34 (34.7) | 26 (46.4) | | | |
GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS | | | | |
Weak | 83 (53.9) | 65 (66.3) | 18 (32.1) | x2 | p-value | Phi/ Cramer’s V |
Strong | 71 (46.1) | 33 (33.7) | 38 (67.9) | 16.759 | 0.000 | 0.33 |
Table 2
Associations between countries’ changes of e-SPAR scores with HDI, CL, GE, and CFR by Multiple Regression Analysis
Model 1 | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F (sig)* |
0.378 | 0.143 | 0.12 | 5.209 (0.000) |
Coefficient | B | Std. Error | Beta | t (sig) | Correlation | Tolerance | VIF |
Constant | 5.551 | 4.453 | N.A. | 1.247 (0.215) | N.A | N.A. | N.A. |
HDI | - 5.326 | 5.899 | - 0.135 | - 0.903 (0.368) | -0.298 | 0.256 | 3.907 |
CL | 0.034 | 0.023 | 0.163 | 1.506 (0.134) | -0.135 | 0.493 | 2.026 |
GE** | - 2.077 | 1.050 | - 0.342 | - 1.977 (0.050) | -0.29 | 0.193 | 5.190 |
CFR* | - 0.608 | 0.231 | - 0.209 | - 2.635 (0.009) | -0.122 | 0.918 | 1.090 |
Model 2 | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F (sig)* |
0.450 | 0.203 | -0.168 | 5.907 (0.000) |
Coefficient | B | Std. Error | Beta | t (sig) | Correlation | Tolerance | VIF |
Constant | 12.084 | 4.077 | N.A. | 2.964 (0.004) | N.A | N.A. | N.A. |
HDI | -9.600 | 5.297 | -0.327 | -1.812 (0.073) | -0.404 | 0.263 | 3.805 |
CL | -0.806 | 1.001 | -0.171 | -0.805 (0.423) | -0.342 | 0.191 | 5.236 |
GE | 0.019 | 0.021 | 0.116 | 0.881 (0.381) | -0.185 | 0.493 | 2.030 |
CFR* | -0.543 | 0.267 | -0.194 | -2.036 (0.045) | -0.172 | 0.941 | 1.063 |
Model 3 | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F (sig) |
0.249 | 0.062 | -0.012 | 0.843 (0.504) |
Coefficient | B | Std. Error | Beta | t (sig) | Correlation | Tolerance | VIF |
Constant | -9.332 | 6.020 | N.A. | -1.550 (0.127) | N.A | N.A. | N.A. |
HDI | 8.288 | 8.205 | 0.261 | 1.010 (0.317) | 0.236 | 0.276 | 3.620 |
CL | -0.490 | 1.355 | -0.104 | -0.361 (0.719) | 0.189 | 0.223 | 4.486 |
GE | 0.009 | 0.030 | 0.057 | 0.297 (0.768) | 0.17 | 0.499 | 2.003 |
CFR | -0.132 | 0.255 | -0.078 | -0.518 (0.606) | -0.136 | 0.819 | 1.221 |
Model 1 is for overall countries, while model 2 is for countries whose score increased, and model 3 is for countries whose score not increased (n = 56); p<0.05* p=0.05**