Public Health Weekly Report 2025; 18(1): 1-16
Published online November 29, 2024
https://doi.org/10.56786/PHWR.2025.18.1.1
© The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency
Sumi Chae 1*, Gang Jae Yun 1
, Jina Jun 1
, Jiyoung Shin 1
, Subin Lee 1
, Jin Ha 2
, Yumi Kim 2
, Minjeong Kwon 2
1Department of Health Care Policy Research, Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, Sejong, Korea, 2Division of Infectious Disease Policy, Department of Infectious Disease Policy, Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, Cheongju, Korea
*Corresponding author: Sumi Chae, Tel: +82-44-287-8120, E-mail: csm1030@kihasa.re.kr
This is an Open Access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
With the amendment of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, ‘investigations of actual conditions of infectious diseases’ have been mandated to be conducted and published every 3 years to understand the actual conditions of the management and infection status of infectious diseases. The first phase of this survey generated foundational data on the occurrence of legally mandated infectious diseases before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the status of local government infectious disease response personnel. In this study, we focused on the key findings of this survey regarding the status of local government infectious disease response personnel. All metropolitan governments and 93.3% of local municipal governments participated in the survey. The primary content of the survey focused on the organizational structure for infectious disease response before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the current status of personnel, such as disease control officers and epidemiologists, dedicated to legally mandated infectious diseases. The survey revealed an increase in the number of infectious disease organizations in both metropolitan and local municipal governments from 2019 to 2023. This survey was the first to be conducted following the revision of the Act and reflects the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey findings highlights the significance of cooperation and communication with metropolitan and local municipal governments to refine the purpose and content of future infectious disease surveys and establish a stable survey system.
Key words Communicable diseases; Coronavirus disease 2019; Workforce; Fact-finding survey
Infectious disease response personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were examined in sample regions, with increased workloads and large staffing levels in response to the pandemic.
This study assessed the status of infectious disease response organizations and personnel in all metropolitan and local municipal governments (health centers) before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. It demonstrated that local governments have expanded their infectious disease response organizations and personnel following the pandemic.
Policy decisions should be implemented to ensure the preparedness and operation of response personnel for future large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. In addition, a stable survey system should be established through the collaboration and coordination between the central government and local authorities to build evidence.
With the amendment of Article 17 (Fact-Finding Surveys) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (enforced on September 5, 2020), ‘investigations of actual conditions of infectious diseases’ have been mandated to be conducted and published every 3 years to understand the actual conditions of the management and infection status of infectious diseases [1]. Although the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates the content and methods of the investigations of actual conditions, it is necessary to define further the purpose and utilization of these investigations and their operating system. Following the amendment of Article 17, the first fact-finding survey on infectious diseases conducted in 2023 mainly aimed to identify the outbreak status of nationally notifiable infectious diseases before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the personnel in charge of infectious disease response in municipal local governments [2]. This study mainly aimed to present the current status of personnel for infectious disease response in local municipal governments in the country.
The survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire for metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments nationwide for about 50 days from February 16 to April 5, 2024. Local municipal governments were sent an electronic official letter with a structured questionnaire in Excel format, which they were asked to fill out and submit by email. In addition, follow-up letters were sent 1 and 2 weeks after the survey initiation to encourage participation and additional reminders were sent to nonparticipating governments. All metropolitan and provincial governments and 93.3% of local municipal governments (community health centers) in the country responded.
Before surveying the current status of personnel in charge of infectious disease response in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments, a standardized questionnaire was developed and revised through interviews with relevant individuals, including managers, team leaders, and staff currently in charge of infectious disease response tasks in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal governments. Interviews at the metropolitan and provincial government level were conducted in person at all ten locations, each lasting between 1–2 hours and involving 2–3 staff members. Interviews at the local municipal government level were conducted similarly for 14 municipalities, with some interviews conducted remotely. The main topics discussed were the status of 1) infectious disease response teams, 2) nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel, and 3) nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel.
We surveyed the structure of departments and teams whose primary duties are to respond to infectious diseases and the number of personnel in these departments before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The pre-COVID-19 period was defined as before December 31, 2019, and the post-COVID-19 period was defined as after December 31, 2023, when the COVID-19 pandemic stabilized and life returned to normal.
In the interviews with those involved in infectious disease response, the need to investigate the status of organizations and personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned many times. However, we decided not to include this period in this study for the following reasons. First, several previous studies have examined the status of personnel in sample regions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, the duties during the COVID-19 pandemic differed from those before and after the pandemic, requiring separate survey items, which would have resulted in a larger number of survey items and potentially affected the accuracy of the survey results. Third, previous studies have shown substantial changes in organizations and personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic, even within a short period. In addition, the changes were likely to vary by region, making it difficult to identify a specific period that could adequately describe the national situation. Fourth, there was a burden of reviewing documents for organizational and staffing changes during the COVID-19 pandemic to report accurate status of metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments.
Nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel refers to those performing tasks related to responding to nationally notifiable infectious disease response. In our interviews with those involved in infectious disease response, we found various infectious disease response tasks in local municipal governments, but they were generally categorized by grade. As the survey asked each respondent to specify the tasks, position, job title, and grade, the status at a past time point was considered prone to error or omission. Therefore, the survey was limited to the status as of December 31, 2023, the latest date available.
Since all personnel responsible for infectious diseases were listed and the number of personnel was stated according to the proportion of tasks of each person, there was no overlap in the number of personnel by role. For example, if a person was responsible for Class 1 and Class 2 infectious diseases, the number of personnel was reported as 0.3 for Class 1 and 0.7 for Class 2, considering the role proportion. If a head of a department was only responsible for general tasks, one person was reported under ‘general tasks for infectious diseases.’ However, if a person was responsible for general and practical tasks, it was reported as 0.8 for general tasks for infectious diseases and 0.2 for Class 1 infectious diseases. Tasks such as immunization and administration, which were not included in infectious disease response tasks by grade, were categorized separately.
Of note, the number of personnel reported under ‘infectious disease response teams’ may differ from that reported under ‘nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel’. This is because the personnel in the dedicated infectious disease unit may also have roles in areas other than infectious diseases and vice versa. In other words, ‘infectious disease response team personnel’ refers to those assigned to the infectious disease response unit. On the other hand, ‘nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel’ refers to all personnel working on infectious diseases, regardless of department.
Nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel refers to the personnel for infectious disease response, as defined in the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. This survey focused on disease control officers and epidemiological investigators. The survey was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic (as of December 31, 2019), during the spread of the Omicron variant (January 30, 2022 to April 24, 2022), and after the COVID-19 pandemic (as of December 31, 2023).
The status of infectious disease response teams in metropolitan and provincial governments indicated that the number of teams and their members increased in 2023 compared with that in 2019. The number of personnel assigned to infectious disease response teams more than doubled from 9.9 in 2019 to an average of 22.8 in 2023. We have already mentioned a difference between the number of personnel in the infectious disease response teams and those for nationally notifiable infectious disease response, as in the following table. There was a discrepancy between the number of people assigned to infectious disease teams and those actually performing infectious disease tasks. In 2023, among all metropolitan and provincial governments, Seoul had the highest number of personnel assigned to infectious disease response teams (57), while Gyeonggi Province had the highest number of personnel performing infectious disease tasks (56) (Table 1).
Metropolitan local governments | 2019 | 2023 | Change from 2019 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of legal infectious disease response personnel | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | ||||||
Seoul Metropolitan City | 1 | 4 | 23 | 2 | 8 | 57 | 45 | 1 | ▲ | 4 | ▲ | 34 | ▲ | ||
Gyeonggi-do | 1 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 55 | 56 | 1 | ▲ | 3 | ▲ | 39 | ▲ | ||
Incheon Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 27 | 27 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Gangwon State | 0 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 11 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongbuk-do | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongnam-do | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Daejeon Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 14 | ▲ | ||
Sejong City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 5 | ▲ | ||
Jeonbuk state | 1 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 16 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | 9 | ▲ | ||
Jeollanam-do | 1 | 4 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | –10 | ▽ | ||
Gwangju Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 15 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 8 | ▲ | ||
Daegu Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 19 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Busan Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 5 | 36 | 37 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 23 | ▲ | ||
Ulsan Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangbuk-do | 1 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 17 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangnam-do | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 21 | 20 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Jeju Special Self-Governing Province | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | ||
Total average | 0.9 | 1.9 | 9.9 | 1.1 | 3.5 | 22.8 | 22.5 | 0.2 | ▲ | 1.6 | ▲ | 12.9 | ▲ | ||
Total standard deviation | 0.3 | 1.3 | 6.4 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 14 | 12.5 | - | - | - |
The “personnel assigned to infectious disease response organizations” and “personnel actually performing infectious disease tasks” in the main text correspond to “total team personnel” and “legal infectious disease response personnel” in the table. ▲=increase, ▽=decrease.
Regarding nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in metropolitan and provincial governments, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ had the highest number of personnel (5.2), followed by ‘general tasks for infectious diseases’ and ‘immunization’ (2.9 each). ‘Other infectious disease response tasks’ had the highest number of personnel and the largest standard deviation and range compared with other tasks. Of the general management tasks (Classes 1 through 4), a higher proportion was related to Class 2 (tuberculosis) and Class 4 (Supplementary Figure 1; available online).
In terms of nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel by job title and grade, healthcare workers were the highest number, followed by nursing, other, and administrative workers, in that order. Healthcare workers were most frequently assigned to other infectious disease response tasks (2) and general infectious disease (1.19). Nursing workers were most frequently assigned to immunization (1.22) and Class 2 infectious diseases (tuberculosis) (0.71). Administrative workers were most frequently assigned to infectious disease administrative support (0.92) and other infectious disease response tasks (0.62) (Supplementary Figure 2; available online).
When examining the full-time jobs that accounted for the largest proportion of employment by infectious disease tasks, general tasks and administrative support for infectious diseases had the largest proportion. On the other hand, all disinfection tasks were assigned to full-time workers. Part-time workers had a large proportion in the general management of Classes 1 to 4 nationally notifiable infectious diseases, with the highest proportion of part-time workers in Class 2 (tuberculosis) tasks (Supplementary Figure 3; available online).
An examination of nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel over time revealed changes in personnel before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. For disease control officers, the number of officers increased slightly from 0.9 in 2019 to 1.0 during the Omicron variant outbreak but then decreased again to 0.9 in 2023. Epidemiologic investigators also increased significantly during the Omicron outbreak, from 2.0 in 2019 to 0.9, 6.2, and 9.2 for full-time, probationary, and part-time staff, respectively. By 2023, the number decreased to 1.8, 4.1, and 0.8 for full-time, probationary, and part-time staff, respectively. Given the different regional conditions during the Omicron outbreak, there were large regional differences in the number of epidemiologic investigators. In 2023, the number of epidemiologic investigators decreased but remained higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, with the proportion of probationary staff greater than that of full-time (Table 2).
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 4.1 | 0.8 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 23.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022.
There was an increase in the number of departments, teams, and total team members of infectious disease response teams in local municipal governments in 2023 compared with those in 2019. Broken down by the population of the region (<100,000/100,000–500,000/>500,000), the highest numbers of infectious disease response divisions and team members were found in regions with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 in 2019, while community health centers with larger populations had a higher number of departments and team members in 2023 (Supplementary Figure 4; available online).
As for the nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in local municipal governments, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ accounted for the highest number (3.06), followed by ‘immunization’ (2.98), and ‘Class 2 (tuberculosis)’ (2.17), which were similar to those in metropolitan and provincial governments (Supplementary Figure 5; available online).
Unlike metropolitan and provincial governments, where healthcare, nursing, and administrative workers were the highest proportion of personnel by job title and grade, nursing workers had the highest proportion in local municipal governments, followed by other and healthcare workers, in that order. In addition, more healthcare workers were assigned to community health centers, while their proportion was relatively lower in metropolitan and provincial governments. Among nursing workers, immunization tasks were the most common (1.65 on average), followed by tuberculosis tasks (0.91 on average). Healthcare workers were mainly assigned to general tasks for infectious diseases or other infectious disease response tasks. Administrative workers were mainly assigned to general tasks or administrative support for infectious diseases. Healthcare technical workers were most likely involved in general tasks for infectious diseases and other infectious disease response tasks (Supplementary Figure 6; available online).
By employment type, community health center personnel for nationally notifiable infectious disease response were predominantly full-time, with most tasks being general management and administrative support for infectious diseases, as observed in metropolitan and provincial governments. In community health centers, part-time positions were predominant in tuberculosis, immunization, and disinfection tasks.
When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel by period, the number of disease control officers increased 2.3 times, from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.7 during the Omicron outbreak, and then decreased to 0.5 in 2023. Epidemiologic investigators increased during the Omicron outbreak from 0.2 in 2019 to 0.3, 1.2, and 1.5 for full-time, probationary, and part-time workers. In 2023, there was a slight increase compared with 2019, with 0.5 full-time epidemiological investigators (Table 3).
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.7 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022.
The survey for infectious disease response personnel examined the status of infectious disease response teams and personnel in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments across the country before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed an increased number of infectious disease response teams and personnel in 2023 compared with that in 2019 for metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal governments. When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in local municipal governments by task classification, the largest personnel proportion was responsible for ‘other infectious disease response tasks’, with a greater standard deviation and range than other tasks. While we standardized local tasks by interviewing those involved in infectious disease response, it appeared that, in some cases, it was difficult to distinguish tasks in this category. In addition, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ might include various tasks that are difficult to define clearly, such as onsite tasks such as disinfection, testing personnel, quarantine vehicles, and COVID-19 treatment reimbursement. Furthermore, the second round of infectious disease investigations of actual conditions should consider standardizing further task classification, including the possibility of several regular and nonregular tasks that are difficult to distinguish clearly.
Among the management (Class 1 to Class 4) tasks, the proportion of Class 4-related tasks was also high, possibly due to the inclusion of Class 4-related tasks as COVID-19 became a Class 4 infectious disease as of August 31, 2023. We also found that metropolitan and provincial governments had a high proportion of nonregular workers in management (Class 1 to Class 4) tasks, with the highest proportion in Class 2 (tuberculosis) tasks. This might be due to the tuberculosis control program budget providing funding to local municipal governments for contract specialist worker payment.
When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel (disease control officers and epidemiologic investigators) by period, staffing has changed in response to COVID-19. The number of disease control officers increased in the Omicron period compared with 2019 but decreased slightly in 2023. For epidemiologic investigators, the number of temporary staff increased the most during the Omicron outbreak. This may reflect the use of healthcare workers and related personnel as temporary staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the number of full-time epidemiologic investigators slightly increased in 2023 compared with 2019, which could be due to the appointment of existing probationary or new epidemiologic investigators, leading to the increase compared with that in the Omicron period. As the nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel may change depending on the infectious disease outbreak situation, building a sustainable crisis response personnel system is necessary to prepare for future infectious disease outbreaks.
Since this is the first survey after the amendment of the Act, there are some limitations in interpreting the results. Because the survey was based on a statutory basis, local governments might have felt under pressure to show that they were complying with the Act as far as possible or that they were responding appropriately. This might have led to an overreporting of the number of teams and personnel. Since the department and personnel for infectious disease response may be classified and understood differently in different local governments, the responses from local governments may differ. Therefore, the survey results should be interpreted with caution. It is necessary to communicate with local governments about the survey system and the use of the survey results to continue collecting information on infectious disease units and personnel in the country.
According to the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, partially amended on January 30, 2024, the role of local governments will be more strongly emphasized in the future. Previously, subjects of investigations of actual conditions and publication were limited to the Commissioner of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, mayors of metropolitan cities, and provincial governors. The revised law has extended this to mayors, county governors, and heads of gu (borough). Of the three types of investigations stipulated in investigations of actual conditions, mayors, county governors, and heads of gu are now authorized to conduct and publish infection control investigations in medical institutions. This was the first survey conducted after the revision of the act, reflecting the special circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the future, the purpose and content of the second round of investigations of actual conditions of infectious disease should be further specified to provide essential data for the increase in the number of infectious disease personnel and the operation by local municipal governments. To this end, it is necessary to establish a stable investigation system through cooperation and communication between the central and local municipal governments.
Ethics Statement: Approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (No. 2024-0212).
Funding Source: This research is supported Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (No. 11-1790387-001001-01).
Acknowledgments: This paper is a reconfiguration of the Study on First Fact-Finding Survey on Infectious Diseases by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author Contributions: Investigation: SMC, GJY, JAJ, JYS, SBL. Writing – original draft: SMC, SBL, JH, YMK, MJK. Writing – review & editing: SMC, SBL, JH, YMK, MJK. Supervision: SMC.
Supplementary data are available online.
Public Health Weekly Report 2025; 18(1): 1-16
Published online January 2, 2025 https://doi.org/10.56786/PHWR.2025.18.1.1
Copyright © The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency.
Sumi Chae 1*, Gang Jae Yun 1
, Jina Jun 1
, Jiyoung Shin 1
, Subin Lee 1
, Jin Ha 2
, Yumi Kim 2
, Minjeong Kwon 2
1Department of Health Care Policy Research, Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, Sejong, Korea, 2Division of Infectious Disease Policy, Department of Infectious Disease Policy, Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, Cheongju, Korea
Correspondence to:*Corresponding author: Sumi Chae, Tel: +82-44-287-8120, E-mail: csm1030@kihasa.re.kr
This is an Open Access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
With the amendment of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, ‘investigations of actual conditions of infectious diseases’ have been mandated to be conducted and published every 3 years to understand the actual conditions of the management and infection status of infectious diseases. The first phase of this survey generated foundational data on the occurrence of legally mandated infectious diseases before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the status of local government infectious disease response personnel. In this study, we focused on the key findings of this survey regarding the status of local government infectious disease response personnel. All metropolitan governments and 93.3% of local municipal governments participated in the survey. The primary content of the survey focused on the organizational structure for infectious disease response before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the current status of personnel, such as disease control officers and epidemiologists, dedicated to legally mandated infectious diseases. The survey revealed an increase in the number of infectious disease organizations in both metropolitan and local municipal governments from 2019 to 2023. This survey was the first to be conducted following the revision of the Act and reflects the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey findings highlights the significance of cooperation and communication with metropolitan and local municipal governments to refine the purpose and content of future infectious disease surveys and establish a stable survey system.
Keywords: Communicable diseases, Coronavirus disease 2019, Workforce, Fact-finding survey
Infectious disease response personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were examined in sample regions, with increased workloads and large staffing levels in response to the pandemic.
This study assessed the status of infectious disease response organizations and personnel in all metropolitan and local municipal governments (health centers) before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. It demonstrated that local governments have expanded their infectious disease response organizations and personnel following the pandemic.
Policy decisions should be implemented to ensure the preparedness and operation of response personnel for future large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. In addition, a stable survey system should be established through the collaboration and coordination between the central government and local authorities to build evidence.
With the amendment of Article 17 (Fact-Finding Surveys) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (enforced on September 5, 2020), ‘investigations of actual conditions of infectious diseases’ have been mandated to be conducted and published every 3 years to understand the actual conditions of the management and infection status of infectious diseases [1]. Although the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates the content and methods of the investigations of actual conditions, it is necessary to define further the purpose and utilization of these investigations and their operating system. Following the amendment of Article 17, the first fact-finding survey on infectious diseases conducted in 2023 mainly aimed to identify the outbreak status of nationally notifiable infectious diseases before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the personnel in charge of infectious disease response in municipal local governments [2]. This study mainly aimed to present the current status of personnel for infectious disease response in local municipal governments in the country.
The survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire for metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments nationwide for about 50 days from February 16 to April 5, 2024. Local municipal governments were sent an electronic official letter with a structured questionnaire in Excel format, which they were asked to fill out and submit by email. In addition, follow-up letters were sent 1 and 2 weeks after the survey initiation to encourage participation and additional reminders were sent to nonparticipating governments. All metropolitan and provincial governments and 93.3% of local municipal governments (community health centers) in the country responded.
Before surveying the current status of personnel in charge of infectious disease response in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments, a standardized questionnaire was developed and revised through interviews with relevant individuals, including managers, team leaders, and staff currently in charge of infectious disease response tasks in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal governments. Interviews at the metropolitan and provincial government level were conducted in person at all ten locations, each lasting between 1–2 hours and involving 2–3 staff members. Interviews at the local municipal government level were conducted similarly for 14 municipalities, with some interviews conducted remotely. The main topics discussed were the status of 1) infectious disease response teams, 2) nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel, and 3) nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel.
We surveyed the structure of departments and teams whose primary duties are to respond to infectious diseases and the number of personnel in these departments before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The pre-COVID-19 period was defined as before December 31, 2019, and the post-COVID-19 period was defined as after December 31, 2023, when the COVID-19 pandemic stabilized and life returned to normal.
In the interviews with those involved in infectious disease response, the need to investigate the status of organizations and personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned many times. However, we decided not to include this period in this study for the following reasons. First, several previous studies have examined the status of personnel in sample regions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, the duties during the COVID-19 pandemic differed from those before and after the pandemic, requiring separate survey items, which would have resulted in a larger number of survey items and potentially affected the accuracy of the survey results. Third, previous studies have shown substantial changes in organizations and personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic, even within a short period. In addition, the changes were likely to vary by region, making it difficult to identify a specific period that could adequately describe the national situation. Fourth, there was a burden of reviewing documents for organizational and staffing changes during the COVID-19 pandemic to report accurate status of metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments.
Nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel refers to those performing tasks related to responding to nationally notifiable infectious disease response. In our interviews with those involved in infectious disease response, we found various infectious disease response tasks in local municipal governments, but they were generally categorized by grade. As the survey asked each respondent to specify the tasks, position, job title, and grade, the status at a past time point was considered prone to error or omission. Therefore, the survey was limited to the status as of December 31, 2023, the latest date available.
Since all personnel responsible for infectious diseases were listed and the number of personnel was stated according to the proportion of tasks of each person, there was no overlap in the number of personnel by role. For example, if a person was responsible for Class 1 and Class 2 infectious diseases, the number of personnel was reported as 0.3 for Class 1 and 0.7 for Class 2, considering the role proportion. If a head of a department was only responsible for general tasks, one person was reported under ‘general tasks for infectious diseases.’ However, if a person was responsible for general and practical tasks, it was reported as 0.8 for general tasks for infectious diseases and 0.2 for Class 1 infectious diseases. Tasks such as immunization and administration, which were not included in infectious disease response tasks by grade, were categorized separately.
Of note, the number of personnel reported under ‘infectious disease response teams’ may differ from that reported under ‘nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel’. This is because the personnel in the dedicated infectious disease unit may also have roles in areas other than infectious diseases and vice versa. In other words, ‘infectious disease response team personnel’ refers to those assigned to the infectious disease response unit. On the other hand, ‘nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel’ refers to all personnel working on infectious diseases, regardless of department.
Nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel refers to the personnel for infectious disease response, as defined in the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. This survey focused on disease control officers and epidemiological investigators. The survey was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic (as of December 31, 2019), during the spread of the Omicron variant (January 30, 2022 to April 24, 2022), and after the COVID-19 pandemic (as of December 31, 2023).
The status of infectious disease response teams in metropolitan and provincial governments indicated that the number of teams and their members increased in 2023 compared with that in 2019. The number of personnel assigned to infectious disease response teams more than doubled from 9.9 in 2019 to an average of 22.8 in 2023. We have already mentioned a difference between the number of personnel in the infectious disease response teams and those for nationally notifiable infectious disease response, as in the following table. There was a discrepancy between the number of people assigned to infectious disease teams and those actually performing infectious disease tasks. In 2023, among all metropolitan and provincial governments, Seoul had the highest number of personnel assigned to infectious disease response teams (57), while Gyeonggi Province had the highest number of personnel performing infectious disease tasks (56) (Table 1).
Metropolitan local governments | 2019 | 2023 | Change from 2019 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of legal infectious disease response personnel | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | ||||||
Seoul Metropolitan City | 1 | 4 | 23 | 2 | 8 | 57 | 45 | 1 | ▲ | 4 | ▲ | 34 | ▲ | ||
Gyeonggi-do | 1 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 55 | 56 | 1 | ▲ | 3 | ▲ | 39 | ▲ | ||
Incheon Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 27 | 27 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Gangwon State | 0 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 11 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongbuk-do | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongnam-do | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Daejeon Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 14 | ▲ | ||
Sejong City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 5 | ▲ | ||
Jeonbuk state | 1 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 16 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | 9 | ▲ | ||
Jeollanam-do | 1 | 4 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | –10 | ▽ | ||
Gwangju Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 15 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 8 | ▲ | ||
Daegu Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 19 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Busan Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 5 | 36 | 37 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 23 | ▲ | ||
Ulsan Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangbuk-do | 1 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 17 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangnam-do | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 21 | 20 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Jeju Special Self-Governing Province | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | ||
Total average | 0.9 | 1.9 | 9.9 | 1.1 | 3.5 | 22.8 | 22.5 | 0.2 | ▲ | 1.6 | ▲ | 12.9 | ▲ | ||
Total standard deviation | 0.3 | 1.3 | 6.4 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 14 | 12.5 | - | - | - |
The “personnel assigned to infectious disease response organizations” and “personnel actually performing infectious disease tasks” in the main text correspond to “total team personnel” and “legal infectious disease response personnel” in the table. ▲=increase, ▽=decrease..
Regarding nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in metropolitan and provincial governments, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ had the highest number of personnel (5.2), followed by ‘general tasks for infectious diseases’ and ‘immunization’ (2.9 each). ‘Other infectious disease response tasks’ had the highest number of personnel and the largest standard deviation and range compared with other tasks. Of the general management tasks (Classes 1 through 4), a higher proportion was related to Class 2 (tuberculosis) and Class 4 (Supplementary Figure 1; available online).
In terms of nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel by job title and grade, healthcare workers were the highest number, followed by nursing, other, and administrative workers, in that order. Healthcare workers were most frequently assigned to other infectious disease response tasks (2) and general infectious disease (1.19). Nursing workers were most frequently assigned to immunization (1.22) and Class 2 infectious diseases (tuberculosis) (0.71). Administrative workers were most frequently assigned to infectious disease administrative support (0.92) and other infectious disease response tasks (0.62) (Supplementary Figure 2; available online).
When examining the full-time jobs that accounted for the largest proportion of employment by infectious disease tasks, general tasks and administrative support for infectious diseases had the largest proportion. On the other hand, all disinfection tasks were assigned to full-time workers. Part-time workers had a large proportion in the general management of Classes 1 to 4 nationally notifiable infectious diseases, with the highest proportion of part-time workers in Class 2 (tuberculosis) tasks (Supplementary Figure 3; available online).
An examination of nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel over time revealed changes in personnel before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. For disease control officers, the number of officers increased slightly from 0.9 in 2019 to 1.0 during the Omicron variant outbreak but then decreased again to 0.9 in 2023. Epidemiologic investigators also increased significantly during the Omicron outbreak, from 2.0 in 2019 to 0.9, 6.2, and 9.2 for full-time, probationary, and part-time staff, respectively. By 2023, the number decreased to 1.8, 4.1, and 0.8 for full-time, probationary, and part-time staff, respectively. Given the different regional conditions during the Omicron outbreak, there were large regional differences in the number of epidemiologic investigators. In 2023, the number of epidemiologic investigators decreased but remained higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, with the proportion of probationary staff greater than that of full-time (Table 2).
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 4.1 | 0.8 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 23.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022..
There was an increase in the number of departments, teams, and total team members of infectious disease response teams in local municipal governments in 2023 compared with those in 2019. Broken down by the population of the region (<100,000/100,000–500,000/>500,000), the highest numbers of infectious disease response divisions and team members were found in regions with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 in 2019, while community health centers with larger populations had a higher number of departments and team members in 2023 (Supplementary Figure 4; available online).
As for the nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in local municipal governments, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ accounted for the highest number (3.06), followed by ‘immunization’ (2.98), and ‘Class 2 (tuberculosis)’ (2.17), which were similar to those in metropolitan and provincial governments (Supplementary Figure 5; available online).
Unlike metropolitan and provincial governments, where healthcare, nursing, and administrative workers were the highest proportion of personnel by job title and grade, nursing workers had the highest proportion in local municipal governments, followed by other and healthcare workers, in that order. In addition, more healthcare workers were assigned to community health centers, while their proportion was relatively lower in metropolitan and provincial governments. Among nursing workers, immunization tasks were the most common (1.65 on average), followed by tuberculosis tasks (0.91 on average). Healthcare workers were mainly assigned to general tasks for infectious diseases or other infectious disease response tasks. Administrative workers were mainly assigned to general tasks or administrative support for infectious diseases. Healthcare technical workers were most likely involved in general tasks for infectious diseases and other infectious disease response tasks (Supplementary Figure 6; available online).
By employment type, community health center personnel for nationally notifiable infectious disease response were predominantly full-time, with most tasks being general management and administrative support for infectious diseases, as observed in metropolitan and provincial governments. In community health centers, part-time positions were predominant in tuberculosis, immunization, and disinfection tasks.
When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease personnel by period, the number of disease control officers increased 2.3 times, from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.7 during the Omicron outbreak, and then decreased to 0.5 in 2023. Epidemiologic investigators increased during the Omicron outbreak from 0.2 in 2019 to 0.3, 1.2, and 1.5 for full-time, probationary, and part-time workers. In 2023, there was a slight increase compared with 2019, with 0.5 full-time epidemiological investigators (Table 3).
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.7 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022..
The survey for infectious disease response personnel examined the status of infectious disease response teams and personnel in metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal (community health centers) governments across the country before (as of December 31, 2019) and after (as of December 31, 2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed an increased number of infectious disease response teams and personnel in 2023 compared with that in 2019 for metropolitan, provincial, and local municipal governments. When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel in local municipal governments by task classification, the largest personnel proportion was responsible for ‘other infectious disease response tasks’, with a greater standard deviation and range than other tasks. While we standardized local tasks by interviewing those involved in infectious disease response, it appeared that, in some cases, it was difficult to distinguish tasks in this category. In addition, ‘other infectious disease response tasks’ might include various tasks that are difficult to define clearly, such as onsite tasks such as disinfection, testing personnel, quarantine vehicles, and COVID-19 treatment reimbursement. Furthermore, the second round of infectious disease investigations of actual conditions should consider standardizing further task classification, including the possibility of several regular and nonregular tasks that are difficult to distinguish clearly.
Among the management (Class 1 to Class 4) tasks, the proportion of Class 4-related tasks was also high, possibly due to the inclusion of Class 4-related tasks as COVID-19 became a Class 4 infectious disease as of August 31, 2023. We also found that metropolitan and provincial governments had a high proportion of nonregular workers in management (Class 1 to Class 4) tasks, with the highest proportion in Class 2 (tuberculosis) tasks. This might be due to the tuberculosis control program budget providing funding to local municipal governments for contract specialist worker payment.
When examining nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel (disease control officers and epidemiologic investigators) by period, staffing has changed in response to COVID-19. The number of disease control officers increased in the Omicron period compared with 2019 but decreased slightly in 2023. For epidemiologic investigators, the number of temporary staff increased the most during the Omicron outbreak. This may reflect the use of healthcare workers and related personnel as temporary staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the number of full-time epidemiologic investigators slightly increased in 2023 compared with 2019, which could be due to the appointment of existing probationary or new epidemiologic investigators, leading to the increase compared with that in the Omicron period. As the nationally notifiable infectious disease response personnel may change depending on the infectious disease outbreak situation, building a sustainable crisis response personnel system is necessary to prepare for future infectious disease outbreaks.
Since this is the first survey after the amendment of the Act, there are some limitations in interpreting the results. Because the survey was based on a statutory basis, local governments might have felt under pressure to show that they were complying with the Act as far as possible or that they were responding appropriately. This might have led to an overreporting of the number of teams and personnel. Since the department and personnel for infectious disease response may be classified and understood differently in different local governments, the responses from local governments may differ. Therefore, the survey results should be interpreted with caution. It is necessary to communicate with local governments about the survey system and the use of the survey results to continue collecting information on infectious disease units and personnel in the country.
According to the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, partially amended on January 30, 2024, the role of local governments will be more strongly emphasized in the future. Previously, subjects of investigations of actual conditions and publication were limited to the Commissioner of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, mayors of metropolitan cities, and provincial governors. The revised law has extended this to mayors, county governors, and heads of gu (borough). Of the three types of investigations stipulated in investigations of actual conditions, mayors, county governors, and heads of gu are now authorized to conduct and publish infection control investigations in medical institutions. This was the first survey conducted after the revision of the act, reflecting the special circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the future, the purpose and content of the second round of investigations of actual conditions of infectious disease should be further specified to provide essential data for the increase in the number of infectious disease personnel and the operation by local municipal governments. To this end, it is necessary to establish a stable investigation system through cooperation and communication between the central and local municipal governments.
Ethics Statement: Approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (No. 2024-0212).
Funding Source: This research is supported Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (No. 11-1790387-001001-01).
Acknowledgments: This paper is a reconfiguration of the Study on First Fact-Finding Survey on Infectious Diseases by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author Contributions: Investigation: SMC, GJY, JAJ, JYS, SBL. Writing – original draft: SMC, SBL, JH, YMK, MJK. Writing – review & editing: SMC, SBL, JH, YMK, MJK. Supervision: SMC.
Supplementary data are available online.
Metropolitan local governments | 2019 | 2023 | Change from 2019 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | No. of legal infectious disease response personnel | No. of divisions | No. of teams | Total no. of team members | ||||||
Seoul Metropolitan City | 1 | 4 | 23 | 2 | 8 | 57 | 45 | 1 | ▲ | 4 | ▲ | 34 | ▲ | ||
Gyeonggi-do | 1 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 55 | 56 | 1 | ▲ | 3 | ▲ | 39 | ▲ | ||
Incheon Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 27 | 27 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Gangwon State | 0 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 11 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongbuk-do | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Chungcheongnam-do | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Daejeon Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 14 | ▲ | ||
Sejong City | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 5 | ▲ | ||
Jeonbuk state | 1 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 16 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | 9 | ▲ | ||
Jeollanam-do | 1 | 4 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 0 | - | –1 | ▽ | –10 | ▽ | ||
Gwangju Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 15 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 8 | ▲ | ||
Daegu Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 19 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 15 | ▲ | ||
Busan Metropolitan City | 1 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 5 | 36 | 37 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 23 | ▲ | ||
Ulsan Metropolitan City | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 0 | - | 2 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangbuk-do | 1 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 17 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 7 | ▲ | ||
Gyeongsangnam-do | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 21 | 20 | 0 | - | 3 | ▲ | 12 | ▲ | ||
Jeju Special Self-Governing Province | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | - | 1 | ▲ | 2 | ▲ | ||
Total average | 0.9 | 1.9 | 9.9 | 1.1 | 3.5 | 22.8 | 22.5 | 0.2 | ▲ | 1.6 | ▲ | 12.9 | ▲ | ||
Total standard deviation | 0.3 | 1.3 | 6.4 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 14 | 12.5 | - | - | - |
The “personnel assigned to infectious disease response organizations” and “personnel actually performing infectious disease tasks” in the main text correspond to “total team personnel” and “legal infectious disease response personnel” in the table. ▲=increase, ▽=decrease..
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 4.1 | 0.8 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 23.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022..
Category | Quarantine officer | Epidemiological investigation officer | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | 2019 | Omicron wave period | 2023 | |||||||
Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | Full-time | Trainee | Temporary | |||||||
Mean | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | ||
Standard deviation | 0.7 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
Unit: No. of people. ‘Full-time’ refers to those officially appointed as epidemiological investigation officers after completing the required training, and ‘Temporary’ follows the definition in Article 60-3 (Temporary Duty Orders) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The number of personnel during the ‘Omicron wave period’ represents the maximum staffing level between January 30, 2022, and April 24, 2022..
Jin Ha, Moonsun Choi, Jiyeon Yoo
Public Health Weekly Report 2023; 16(48): 1668-1681 https://doi.org/10.56786/PHWR.2023.16.48.2Eun-Bi Oh, Sung-Hee Hong, Eun-Ju Lee, Jee Eun Rhee, Eun-Jin Kim
Public Health Weekly Report 2024; 17(49): 2224-2236 https://doi.org/10.56786/PHWR.2024.17.49.4Sun-Kyung Baek, Hee Jae Lee, Hee-Bin Park, Eunyoung Lee, Eunsuk Ahn, Younjhin Ahn, Bo Youl Choi*
Public Health Weekly Report 2024; 17(47): 2019-2034 https://doi.org/10.56786/PHWR.2024.17.47.1