Closing the birth registration gap for Every newborn facility birth: literature review and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: Birth registration is vital to provide legal identity and access to essential services. Worldwide, approximately 166 million children under five years (just under 25%) are unregistered, yet >80% of all births occur in health facilities in most low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). OBJECTIVES: This study, conducted in association with UNICEF, aims to review facility-based birth registration initiatives, and provide recommendations to close the gap between facility birth and birth registration rates in LMIC. METHODS: A literature review covering published and grey literature was conducted to identify facility-based initiatives to increase birth registration rates. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted by audio-call with six key global stakeholders to identify additional initiatives, and further insights for barriers and enablers to close the gap. RESULTS: Academic databases and grey literature search yielded 21 studies meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria. Nine barriers preventing birth registration were identified and grouped into three themes: health system, governmental, and societal barriers. Facility-based birth registration initiatives resulted in an increase in birth registration rates. Importantly, health promotion within communities also increased demand for birth registration. In-depth interview respondents provided further detail and supported data found in literature review. Synthesis of the literature and stakeholder interviews noted enablers including inter-sectoral collaboration between health sector and civil registration ministries e.g., placing civil registration offices in health facilities or allowing medical doctors to act as registrars. CONCLUSION: Facility-based birth registration initiatives can increase birth registration rates in LMIC. Initiatives need to address both supply and demand side of birth registration to improve facility-based birth registration rates. A multi-sectoral approach within governments, and alignment with multiple stakeholders is vital.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during resurgence driven by Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection. METHODS: We included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between May 01-May 21, 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent previous wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination, and previous infection. RESULTS: Among 3793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves, the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93; 1.34). Both Omicron waves had a lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Previous infection (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24; 0.36) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07; 0.40 for at least three doses vs no vaccine) were protective. CONCLUSION: Disease severity was similar among diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to previous infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective.

Evaluation of a public COVID-19 dashboard in the Western Cape, South Africa: a tool for communication, trust, and transparency.

BACKGROUND: Public health dashboards have been used in the past to communicate and guide local responses to outbreaks, epidemics, and a host of various health conditions. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, dashboards proliferated but the availability and quality differed across the world. This study aimed to evaluate the quality, access, and end-user experience of one such dashboard in the Western Cape province, South Africa. METHODS: We analysed retrospective aggregate data on viewership over time for the first year since launch of the dashboard (30 April 2020 - 29 April 2021) and conducted a cross-sectional survey targeting adult users of the dashboard at one year post the initial launch. The self-administered, anonymous questionnaire with a total of 13 questions was made available via an online digital survey tool for a 2-week period (6 May 2021 - 21 May 2021). RESULTS: After significant communication by senior provincial political leaders, adequate media coverage and two waves of COVID-19 the Western Cape public COVID-19 dashboard attracted a total of 2,248,456 views during its first year. The majority of these views came from Africa/South Africa with higher median daily views during COVID-19 wave periods. A total of 794 participants responded to the survey questionnaire. Reported devices used to access the dashboard differed statistically between occupational status groups with students tending toward using mobile devices whilst employed and retired participants tending toward using desktop computers/laptops. Frequency of use increases with increasing age with 65.1% of those > 70 years old viewing it daily. Overall, 76.4% of respondents reported that the dashboard influenced their personal planning and behaviour. High Likert score ratings were given for clarity, ease of use and overall end-user experience, with no differences seen across the various age groups surveyed. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that both the availability of data and an understanding of end-user need is critical when developing and delivering public health tools that may ultimately garner public trust and influence individual behaviour.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during resurgence driven by Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

Objective: We aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection. Methods: We included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1-21 May 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection. Results: Among 3,793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93; 1.34). Both Omicron waves had lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Prior infection (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24; 0.36) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07; 0.40 for boosted vs. no vaccine) were protective. Conclusion: Disease severity was similar amongst diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Omicron-driven fourth wave compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron-driven fourth wave with prior waves in the Western Cape, assess the contribution of undiagnosed prior infection to differences in outcomes in a context of high seroprevalence due to prior infection and determine whether protection against severe disease conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination was maintained. METHODS: In this cohort study, we included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 14 November and 11 December 2021 (wave four) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of the following outcomes using Cox regression: death, severe hospitalisation or death and any hospitalisation or death (all ≤14 days after diagnosis) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, geography, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: We included 5144 patients from wave four and 11,609 from prior waves. The risk of all outcomes was lower in wave four compared to the Delta-driven wave three (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for death 0.27 [0.19; 0.38]. Risk reduction was lower when adjusting for vaccination and prior diagnosed infection (aHR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29; 0.59) and reduced further when accounting for unascertained prior infections (aHR: 0.72). Vaccine protection was maintained in wave four (aHR for outcome of death: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10; 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In the Omicron-driven wave, severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced mostly due to protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but intrinsically reduced virulence may account for a modest reduction in risk of severe hospitalisation or death compared to the Delta-driven wave.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Omicron-driven fourth wave compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron-driven fourth wave with prior waves in the Western Cape, the contribution of undiagnosed prior infection to differences in outcomes in a context of high seroprevalence due to prior infection, and whether protection against severe disease conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination was maintained. METHODS: In this cohort study, we included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with a laboratory confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 14 November-11 December 2021 (wave four) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of the following outcomes using Cox regression: death, severe hospitalization or death and any hospitalization or death (all ≤14 days after diagnosis) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, geography, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: We included 5,144 patients from wave four and 11,609 from prior waves. Risk of all outcomes was lower in wave four compared to the Delta-driven wave three (adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for death 0.27 [0.19; 0.38]. Risk reduction was lower when adjusting for vaccination and prior diagnosed infection (aHR:0.41, 95% CI: 0.29; 0.59) and reduced further when accounting for unascertained prior infections (aHR: 0.72). Vaccine protection was maintained in wave four (aHR for outcome of death: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10; 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In the Omicron-driven wave, severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced mostly due to protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but intrinsically reduced virulence may account for an approximately 25% reduced risk of severe hospitalization or death compared to Delta.

Higher COVID-19 mortality in low-income communities in the City of Cape Town - a descriptive ecological study.

Background Cape Town, a South African city with high levels of economic inequality, has gone through two COVID-19 waves. There is evidence globally that low-income communities experience higher levels of morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. Methods Age-standardized COVID-19 mortality in the eight sub-districts of Cape Town was compared by economic indicators taken from the most recent Census (unemployment rate, monthly income). Results The overall Standardized Death Rate (SDR) for COVID-19 in Cape Town was 1 640 per million, but there was wide variation across the different sub-districts. A linear relationship was seen between sub-districts with high poverty and high COVID-19 SDRs. Conclusions Low-income communities in Cape Town experienced higher levels of COVID-19 mortality. As we continue to contend with COVID-19, these communities need to be prioritized for access to quality health care.

Contact Tracing and the COVID-19 Response in Africa: Best Practices, Key Challenges, and Lessons Learned from Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda.

Most African countries have recorded relatively lower COVID-19 burdens than Western countries. This has been attributed to early and strong political commitment and robust implementation of public health measures, such as nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, face mask wearing, testing, contact tracing, and isolation, along with community education and engagement. Other factors include the younger population age strata and hypothesized but yet-to-be confirmed partially protective cross-immunity from parasitic diseases and/or other circulating coronaviruses. However, the true burden may also be underestimated due to operational and resource issues for COVID-19 case identification and reporting. In this perspective article, we discuss selected best practices and challenges with COVID-19 contact tracing in Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. Best practices from these country case studies include sustained, multi-platform public communications; leveraging of technology innovations; applied public health expertise; deployment of community health workers; and robust community engagement. Challenges include an overwhelming workload of contact tracing and case detection for healthcare workers, misinformation and stigma, and poorly sustained adherence to isolation and quarantine. Important lessons learned include the need for decentralization of contact tracing to the lowest geographic levels of surveillance, rigorous use of data and technology to improve decision-making, and sustainment of both community sensitization and political commitment. Further research is needed to understand the role and importance of contact tracing in controlling community transmission dynamics in African countries, including among children. Also, implementation science will be critically needed to evaluate innovative, accessible, and cost-effective digital solutions to accommodate the contact tracing workload.