Comparison of the content of the New Zealand influenza pandemic plan with European pandemic plans.
OBJECTIVE
To critically review version 16 of the New Zealand (NZ) influenza pandemic plan in relation to the content of European pandemic plans.


METHODS
We used a published framework that had been developed for describing 29 European pandemic plans (all of which were available in 2006). This framework was used to rate the content of the NZ plan compared with the combined results for European plans.


RESULTS
In terms of plan content on border control aspects, the NZ plan scored higher than the average European plan (8.0 vs 4.9 out of 10.0 respectively) and similarly for the antiviral aspects (13.5 vs 10.6 out of 17.0). However, it scored slightly lower for the vaccine aspects (4.5 vs 5.3 out of 11.0). An alternate (more stringent) scoring system suggested that the relative quality of the NZ plan was poorer for antiviral aspects and fairly similar for vaccine aspects (to the average European plan). Even so, this framework had various limitations and probably favoured European countries which often have their own vaccine/antiviral production capacity. The NZ plan may also have scored more highly if the framework used considered other control measures (e.g. social distancing interventions). This comparison also identified some gaps which could be worth addressing in the planned 2009 version of the NZ plan (e.g. improved detail around priority groups for antivirals and pandemic vaccine and consideration of pneumococcal vaccine).


CONCLUSIONS
The NZ influenza pandemic plan compared favourably with the average European plan in many aspects but not all. There is scope for further improvements and additions to be made in the next (2009) version of the NZ plan.
Wilson
Nick
N
Department of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington South, New Zealand. nick.wilson@otago.ac.nz
Baker
Michael G
MG