[Comparative Analysis of Infectious Disease Risk Assessment Frameworks between National and International Agencies: The Status of and Future Improvements of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency].

OBJECTIVES: In the context of recurring threats from infectious disease outbreaks, establishing a rapid risk assessment framework based on scientific evidence is a core component of national public health preparedness. In this study, the aim was to compare the infectious disease risk assessment frameworks of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), to determine the status of the KDCA, and to suggest future directions for improvement.

METHODS: A literature-based comparative analysis was conducted, focusing on evaluation indicators, implementation procedures, presentation of results, and the level of public disclosure using official manuals and documents published by each agency.

RESULTS: All three agencies (CDC, ECDC, and KDCA) commonly assess probability and health/social impact as key assessment factors and operate expert-driven rapid risk assessment during the early stages of outbreaks. The KDCA has continuously refined its system through regular updates of manuals and development disease-specific evaluation indicators. However, the CDC and ECDC explicitly incorporate the level of confidence in scientific evidence and visually present risk assessment results to the public.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the KDCA has established a framework aligned with international standards, further advances are required in the quantification of risk assessment, explicit indication of the level of confidence, and improvement in the disclosure of information to the public. These improvements will strengthen evidence-based policy decision-making, enhance public transparency, and ultimately increase public trust.