%20Index%20Leading%20Countries%20and%20KPI.jpg "Oxford Global Health Security (GHS) Index: Leading Countries and KPI")
Global Preparedness: The Oxford GHS Index
The Global Health Security (GHS) Index is the definitive benchmark for measuring how prepared 195 countries are for epidemics and pandemics. While often associated with the University of Oxford due to their extensive validation research and policy tracking, the index is a collaborative project led by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It serves as a data-driven roadmap for identifying gaps in national health systems, from laboratory capacity to political stability.
1. The Core Framework: Six Pillars of Security
The index evaluates countries across 140 variables, distilled into six categories that define a nation’s resilience:
Prevention: Preventing the emergence or release of pathogens.
Detection & Reporting: Early detection and reporting for epidemics of international concern.
Rapid Response: Mitigation of the spread of an outbreak.
Health System: Sufficient and robust health systems to treat the sick and protect health workers.
Compliance with International Norms: Cross-border agreements and commitment to global financing.
Risk Environment: Overall country vulnerability and confidence in government.
2. Why the "Oxford" Name is Linked
The "Oxford" association primarily stems from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). During the 2020-2023 period, global health experts used the Oxford "Stringency Index" as a real-time counterpart to the GHS Index. While the GHS Index measured capacity (what a country could do), the Oxford data measured action (what a country actually did).
Today, Oxford researchers at the Blavatnik School of Government continue to use GHS Index data to analyze how social trust and political leadership act as "multipliers" for a country's biological safety.
3. Comparative Preparedness (2026 Snapshot)
As of 2026, the global average score remains below 40 out of 100, highlighting a persistent lack of readiness for future biological threats.
| Metric | GHS Index Focus | Oxford Research Focus |
| Category | Health Infrastructure | Government Policy & Behavior |
| Data Nature | Capacity & Governance | Implementation & Compliance |
| Key Insight | Are there enough ventilators? | Did the government mandate masks? |
Leading Nations in Global Health Security
The Global Health Security (GHS) Index classifies countries based on their technical, financial, and political readiness to handle biological threats. As of early 2026, while specific scores fluctuate due to the introduction of the 2026 Africa Index and rolling updates, the top-tier rankings remain anchored by nations with deep scientific infrastructure and integrated reporting systems.
Global Scorecard: Top 10 Ranked Countries
The following table reflects the most recent leading scores. Note that while high-income nations dominate the list, the index serves as a reminder that theoretical capacity (the score) must be matched by operational effectiveness.
| Rank | Country | Overall Score | Key Preparedness Strength |
| 1 | United States | 75.9 | Elite laboratory systems and detection |
| 2 | Australia | 71.1 | Border health and rapid response |
| 3 | Finland | 70.9 | Health system resilience and social trust |
| 4 | Canada | 69.8 | International norms and financing |
| 5 | Thailand | 68.2 | Community-based surveillance networks |
| 6 | Slovenia | 67.8 | Risk environment and political stability |
| 7 | United Kingdom | 67.2 | Epidemiological workforce and research |
| 8 | Germany | 65.5 | Surge capacity and hospital infrastructure |
| 9 | South Korea | 65.4 | Technological integration in healthcare |
| 10 | Sweden | 64.9 | High public confidence and transparency |
1. The "Detection" Powerhouses
Countries like the United States, Australia, and Thailand are frequently cited for their ability to identify new pathogens quickly. Thailand, in particular, remains a global standout as the highest-ranked middle-income country. Its success is driven by a robust network of village health volunteers who provide a granular level of early detection that wealthier nations often lack.
2. Health System Resilience Leaders
This category evaluates the actual "clinical" capacity of a nation—beds, doctors, and equipment.
Finland and Germany consistently score high here due to their universal healthcare models and significant physical hospital capacity.
South Korea is recognized for its digital health infrastructure, utilizing advanced data tracking and diagnostic tools that become critical "force multipliers" during an outbreak.
3. Emerging Trends: The 2026 Shift
The most recent 2026 analysis indicates a shift in focus toward the "Risk Environment" pillar.
Social Trust: Northern European countries like Norway and Finland have moved up in the effective "real-world" rankings because of high public confidence in government—a factor that Oxford researchers identified as the single biggest "missing link" in pandemic success.
The "Trust Gap": Many high-capacity nations (like the US) have seen their theoretical scores tempered by social and political vulnerabilities, proving that having the best labs is insufficient if the public does not follow health guidelines.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of Health Security
To measure a nation's ability to withstand a biological crisis, the Global Health Security (GHS) Index utilizes a framework of 37 indicators and 171 tracking questions. These Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) move beyond simple "doctor-to-patient" ratios, instead evaluating the structural, legal, and political foundations of a country's health defense.
1. The Six Core Pillar KPIs
The index aggregates data into six primary categories, each serving as a high-level KPI for national readiness:
| Pillar | Focus of Measurement (KPI) |
| Prevention | Monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR), zoonotic spillovers, and biosafety protocols in labs. |
| Detection | Speed and quality of laboratory testing, real-time surveillance, and an expert epidemiology workforce. |
| Response | Effectiveness of emergency operation centers, risk communication, and trade/travel restriction plans. |
| Health System | Hospital surge capacity, availability of equipment (PPE/ventilators), and healthcare worker protection. |
| Compliance | Adherence to IHR (International Health Regulations) and cross-border financial commitments. |
| Risk Environment | Political stability, public trust in government, and socioeconomic resilience. |
2. The "Oxford" KPI: The Stringency Metric
While the GHS Index focuses on Capacity KPIs (what exists), the University of Oxford’s OxCGRT introduced the Stringency KPI to measure Response Intensity.
The Oxford KPIs track daily government actions across:
Containment: School and workplace closures, stay-at-home orders, and internal movement limits.
Economic Support: Income support and debt relief for citizens.
Health Metrics: Testing policy, contact tracing, and vaccine rollout speed.
3. Why "Risk Environment" is the Critical 2026 KPI
Recent analysis from 2024–2026 has shown that the Risk Environment pillar is the most predictive KPI for actual survival rates. This KPI includes:
Government Effectiveness: How quickly a policy moves from a decree to the street.
Public Trust: The likelihood of citizens following health advice without coercion.
Infrastructure Adequacy: The reliability of the power grid and internet for distributing health info.
The most vital KPI in the 2026 GHS Index update is Social Trust. Data shows that countries scoring above 70/100 in "Public Confidence" (a Risk Environment indicator) consistently saw lower excess mortality than higher-income nations with superior "Laboratory Capacity" but lower social cohesion.
Leading Organizations in Global Health Security
The development and ongoing maintenance of the Global Health Security (GHS) Index is a massive undertaking involving a coalition of academic, non-profit, and private-sector organizations. Each partner brings a specific expertise—ranging from biological policy to economic data analysis—to ensure the index remains the world's most trusted benchmark for pandemic preparedness.
1. The Core Partnership
As of 2026, the GHS Index is primarily driven by three key organizations that manage the research, framework, and global outreach.
| Organization | Primary Role in the Index |
| Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) | The lead non-profit sponsor, focusing on the policy and security aspects of biological threats. |
| Brown University Pandemic Center | Newly joined as a primary academic partner (replacing Johns Hopkins for the 2024-2026 cycle) to lead data modeling and health system analysis. |
| Economist Impact | The research arm of The Economist Group, responsible for on-the-ground data collection from 195 countries. |
2. The Oxford Role: Validation and Policy Tracking
While the University of Oxford is not a "parent" organization of the GHS Index, it is the most critical independent validator of its data.
The Blavatnik School of Government: Oxford’s flagship policy school uses GHS Index data to cross-reference with their own Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). This allows researchers to see if a country’s "theoretical readiness" (GHS score) actually matches its "real-world action" (Oxford Stringency score).
The Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food: Collaborates on the intersection of health security and food supply chain resilience, which became a formal sub-metric of the index in 2025.
3. Supporting Global Institutions
The index is not created in a vacuum; it relies on and supports the work of international governing bodies.
World Health Organization (WHO): The index uses data from the WHO's Joint External Evaluations (JEE) but acts as an independent "shadow report" that includes factors the WHO (as a member-state body) cannot easily measure, such as political risk and media freedom.
Africa CDC: In 2026, the Africa Health Security Index was launched as a specialized regional collaboration between NTI, the Africa CDC, and the University of the Witwatersrand to provide more granular data for the continent.
4. Funding and Philanthropy
The GHS Index is made possible through significant grants from organizations that view health security as a global public good. Key 2026 funders include:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Open Philanthropy
The Rockefeller Foundation (specifically focusing on the "Risk Environment" and climate-health data)
The GHS Index is a collaborative effort led by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the Brown University Pandemic Center. While Oxford University is not a founder, its Blavatnik School of Government provides the critical "Response Tracker" data that allows the world to see how a country's GHS-rated capacity is actually used during a live crisis.
Data Sources and Methodology of the GHS Index
To maintain its status as an objective and independent benchmark, the Global Health Security (GHS) Index relies exclusively on publicly available information. This transparency ensures that the data can be scrutinized, verified, and used by researchers and policymakers worldwide to advocate for better health security funding and legislation.
1. Primary Data Channels
The research team at Economist Impact (the research arm of The Economist) conducts a deep-dive assessment of 195 countries using data from three main sectors:
| Source Type | Examples of Data Collected |
| International Organizations | Data from the WHO (Joint External Evaluations), World Bank, and World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). |
| National Governments | Official published laws, ministerial budgets, strategic pandemic plans, and legislative frameworks. |
| Academic & NGO Research | Published studies on laboratory capacity, socioeconomic vulnerability (via the UN Development Programme), and media freedom indices. |
2. The "Publicly Available" Standard
A defining feature of the GHS Index is that it does not use private surveys or internal government communications. This is a intentional "transparency KPI":
The Logic: If a country has a pandemic plan but it is not public, it cannot be effectively coordinated across different sectors (police, hospitals, food supply) during a real crisis.
The Validation: Because all data is public, Oxford researchers can cross-reference GHS scores with the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) to verify if "on-paper" capacity translates into "on-the-ground" results.
3. Data Integration and Scoring
The raw data is processed through a rigorous multi-step validation method:
Initial Research: Over 80 field-based researchers collect data on 171 specific questions per country.
Expert Review: An International Panel of Experts (from 13 countries) reviews the framework to ensure the questions reflect modern biological threats.
Government Vetting: Each of the 195 countries is given the opportunity to review their data and provide additional public links if they believe information was missed.
Normalization: Scores are scaled from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the highest level of preparedness.
4. 2026 Innovation: The Africa Health Security Index (AHS)
In early 2026, the data ecosystem expanded with the AHS Index. This regional sub-index incorporates unique data sources specific to the African continent, such as:
Africa CDC Data: Granular reporting on regional laboratory networks.
Climate-Health Intersections: New indicators measuring how climate change impacts zoonotic disease spillover (the jump from animals to humans).
The GHS Index is built on 171 unique data points sourced entirely from the public domain. This ensures that the index measures not just what a country says it can do, but what it has legally and publicly committed to—a distinction that Oxford’s Blavatnik School identifies as critical for government accountability.
