Generic logic model for coronavirus disease-2019 responses based on the south Korean experience

1Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: As the global coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, many countries have implemented public health policies, such as lockdowns and physical distancing measures, to prevent its spread. South Korea’s response to COVID-19, which prevented an increase in confirmed cases and increased resilience, has been considered very effective. Purpose: To analyze Korea’s response to COVID-19 in 2020 and develop a logic model to evaluate performance effectiveness in follow-up studies. Methods: By content analysis of Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) press releases, we defined the problems and identified the causes of the health and social effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Next, we created a problem tree and developed a logic model that comprised inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Finally, we held expert consultations to obtain expert opinions regarding the logic model and to ensure the model’s validity. Results: South Korea’s COVID-19 response policy mitigated the social and health impacts. The 2020 COVID-19 responses had four outcomes (identifying cases on time, preventing transmission of coronavirus infection, effective treatment of COVID-19 cases, protecting public resilience and well-being) and 12 outputs; South Korea conducted 32 activities. Conclusion: The results can be a practical reference for managing problems faced in other countries. Korean policy may be of interest in the future for international decision-makers in charge of policy enforcement and those who may be called on to respond to new infectious diseases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chun, H. R., Yoon, K., Kim, H., Cheon, E., Ha, J., Tak, S., & Cho, S. I. (2021). Generic logic model for coronavirus disease-2019 responses based on the south Korean experience. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 14, 4765–4774. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S336425

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free