In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.

Input: Consider Input: Background: Infection control professionals (ICP) who have experienced disaster response have not been assessed in terms of the lessons they have learned, gaps they perceive in disaster preparedness, and their perceived priorities for future emergency response training. Methods: Focus groups were conducted at the APIC 2006 Conference to evaluate ICPs' perceived needs related to disaster planning topics, products they feel are needed for education and reference materials, and lessons learned from past disasters. Results: ICPs' role in disaster preparedness and response is essential, even in noninfectious disease emergencies. Infection control issues in shelters, such as overcrowding, foodborne illness, lack of restroom facilities, inadequate environmental cleaning procedures and products, difficulty assessing disease outbreaks in shelters, inability to isolate potentially contagious patients, and too few hand hygiene supplies can contribute to secondary disease transmission. Other important topics on which ICPs need to be trained include surge capacity, employee health and safety, incident command system, educating responders and the public on disaster preparedness, addressing changing standards/recommendations, and partnering with public health. ICPs need quick reference materials, such as checklists, templates, tool kits, and algorithms to better equip them for disaster response. Conclusion: Infection control must continue to partner with public health and other responding agencies to address gaps in disaster planning. (Am J Infect Control 2007;35:374-81.) 

Output: Disaster preparedness lessons learned and future directions for education: Results from focus groups conducted at the 2006 APIC Conference


Input: Consider Input: We evaluated the acceptability of an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination among the health care professionals following seasons with significant antigenic drift. Self-administered, anonymous surveys were performed by hard copy questionnaires in public hospitals, and by an on-line platform available to all healthcare professionals, from April 1st to May 31st, 2015. A total of 1290 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaires, including doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in both the public and private systems. Only 31.8% of participating respondents expressed an intention to receive the additional vaccine, despite that the majority of them agreed or strongly agreed that it would bring benefit to the community (88.9%), save lives (86.7%), reduce medical expenses (76.3%), satisfy public expectation (82.8%), and increase awareness of vaccination (86.1%). However, a significant proportion expressed concern that the vaccine could disturb the normal immunization schedule (45.5%); felt uncertain what to do in the next vaccination round (66.0%); perceived that the summer peak might not occur (48.2%); and believed that the summer peak might not be of the same virus (83.5%). Furthermore, 27.8% of all respondents expected that the additional vaccination could weaken the efficacy of previous vaccinations; 51.3% was concerned about side effects; and 61.3% estimated that there would be a low uptake rate. If the supply of vaccine was limited, higher priority groups were considered to include the elderly aged !65 years with chronic medical conditions (89.2%), the elderly living in residential care homes (87.4%), and longstay residents of institutions for the disabled (80.7%). The strongest factors associated with accepting the additional vaccine included immunization with influenza vaccines in the past 3 years, higher perceived risk of contracting influenza, and higher perceived severity of the disease impact. The acceptability to an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination was low among healthcare professionals. This could have a negative impact on such additional vaccination campaigns since healthcare professionals are a key driver for vaccine acceptance. The discordance in perceived risk and acceptance of vaccination regarding self versus public deserves further evaluation. Abbreviations: AOR = adjusted odds ratios, WHO = world health organization. Editor: Barry Margulies. Ã x 2 test or Fisher exact tests for variables with any cell <5. Values are numbers (percentages) of respondents unless stated otherwise. The values in bold represented those with P < 0.10, which were selected as variables in the multivariate regression analysis.

Output: Ad Hoc Influenza Vaccination During Years of Significant Antigenic Drift in a Tropical City With 2 Seasonal Peaks A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Health Care Practitioners


Input: Consider Input: Background: Although the COVID-19 has been well controlled in China, it is rapidly spreading outside China that may lead to catastrophic results globally without implementation of necessary mitigation measures. Because the COVID-19 outbreak has made comprehensive and profound impacts on the world, an accurate prediction of its epidemic trend is significant. Although many studies have predicted the COVID-19 epidemic trend, most of these studies have used the early stage data and focused on the China cases. We predicted the COVID-19 epidemic trend in China and across the world using the machine learning approach. We first built the models for predicting the daily numbers of cumulative confirmed cases (CCCs), new cases (NCs), and death cases (DCs) of COVID-19 in China based on the data from


Output: Predicting the epidemic trend of COVID-19 in China and across the world using the machine learning approach