The implementation of infection prevention and control measures and health care utilisation in ACF-supported health facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) was a central component of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's COVID-19 response in 2020, aiming to prevent infections and ensure safe health service provision. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the evolution of IPC capacity in 65 health facilities supported by Action Contre la Faim in three health zones in Kinshasa (Binza Meteo (BM), Binza Ozone (BO), and Gombe), investigate how triage and alert validation were implemented, and estimate how health service utilisation changed in these facilities (April-December 2020). METHODS: We used three datasets: IPC Scorecard data assessing health facilities' IPC capacity at baseline, monthly and weekly triage data, and monthly routine data on eight health services. We examined factors associated with triage and isolation capacity with a mixed-effects negative binomial model and estimated changes in health service utilisation with a mixed-model with random intercept and long-term trend for each health facility. We reported incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for level change when the pandemic began, for trend change, and for lockdown and post-lockdown periods (Gombe). We estimated cumulative and monthly percent differences with expected consultations. RESULTS: IPC capacity reached an average score of 90% by the end of the programme. A one-point increase in the IPC score was associated with +6% and +5% increases in triage capacity in BO and Gombe, respectively, and with +21% and +10% increases in isolation capacity in the same zones. When the pandemic began, decreases were seen in outpatient consultations (IRR: 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.48-0.95] BM&BO-combined; IRR: 0.29, 95%CI [0.16-0.53] Gombe), consultations for respiratory tract infections (IRR: 0.48, 95%CI [0.28-0.87] BM&BO-combined), malaria (IRR: 0.60, 95%CI [0.43-0.84] BM&BO-combined, IRR: 0.33, 95%CI [0.18-0.58] Gombe), and vaccinations (IRR: 0.27, 95%CI [0.10-0.71] Gombe). Maternal health services decreased in Gombe (ANC1: IRR: 0.42, 95%CI [0.21-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of the triage and alert validation process was affected by the complexity of implementing a broad clinical definition in limited-resource settings with a pre-pandemic epidemiological profile characterised by infectious diseases with symptoms like COVID-19. Readily available testing capacity remains key for future pandemic response to improve the disease understanding and maintain health services.

Challenges Addressing Inequalities in Measles Vaccine Coverage in Zambia through a Measles-Rubella Supplementary Immunization Activity during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Measles-rubella supplementary immunization activities (MR-SIAs) are conducted to address inequalities in coverage and fill population immunity gaps when routine immunization services fail to reach all children with two doses of a measles-containing vaccine (MCV). We used data from a post-campaign coverage survey in Zambia to measure the proportion of measles zero-dose and under-immunized children who were reached by the 2020 MR-SIA and identified reasons associated with persistent inequalities following the MR-SIA. METHODS: Children between 9 and 59 months were enrolled in a nationally representative, cross-sectional, multistage stratified cluster survey in October 2021 to estimate vaccination coverage during the November 2020 MR-SIA. Vaccination status was determined by immunization card or through caregivers' recall. MR-SIA coverage and the proportion of measles zero-dose and under-immunized children reached by MR-SIA were estimated. Log-binomial models were used to assess risk factors for missing the MR-SIA dose. RESULTS: Overall, 4640 children were enrolled in the nationwide coverage survey. Only 68.6% (95% CI: 66.7%, 70.6%) received MCV during the MR-SIA. The MR-SIA provided MCV1 to 4.2% (95% CI: 0.9%, 4.6%) and MCV2 to 6.3% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.1%) of enrolled children, but 58.1% (95% CI: 59.8%, 62.8%) of children receiving the MR-SIA dose had received at least two prior MCV doses. Furthermore, 27.8% of measles zero-dose children were vaccinated through the MR-SIA. The MR-SIA reduced the proportion of measles zero-dose children from 15.1% (95% CI: 13.6%, 16.7%) to 10.9% (95% CI: 9.7%, 12.3%). Zero-dose and under-immunized children were more likely to miss MR-SIA doses (prevalence ratio (PR): 2.81; 95% CI: 1.80, 4.41 and 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 and 4.07) compared to fully vaccinated children. CONCLUSIONS: The MR-SIA reached more under-immunized children with MCV2 than measles zero-dose children with MCV1. However, improvement is needed to reach the remaining measles zero-dose children after SIA. One possible solution to address the inequalities in vaccination is to transition from nationwide non-selective SIAs to more targeted and selective strategies.