Public risk perception and behaviours towards COVID-19 during the first and second waves in Nigeria: a secondary data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe changes in public risk perception and risky behaviours during the first wave (W1) and second wave (W2) of COVID-19 in Nigeria, associated factors and observed trend of the outbreak. DESIGN: A secondary data analysis of cross-sectional telephone-based surveys conducted during the W1 and W2 of COVID-19 in Nigeria. SETTING: Nigeria. PARTICIPANTS: Data from participants randomly selected from all states in Nigeria. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Risk perception for COVID-19 infection categorised as risk perceived and risk not perceived. SECONDARY OUTCOME: Compliance to public health and social measures (PHSMs) categorised as compliant; non-compliant and indifferent. ANALYSIS: Comparison of frequencies during both waves using χ2 statistic to test for associations. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses helped estimate the unadjusted and adjusted odds of risk perception of oneself contracting COVID-19. Level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Triangulated datasets had a total of 6401 respondents, majority (49.5%) aged 25-35 years. Overall, 55.4% and 56.1% perceived themselves to be at risk of COVID-19 infection during the W1 and W2, respectively. A higher proportion of males than females perceived themselves to be at risk during the W1 (60.3% vs 50.3%, p<0.001) and the W2 (58.3% vs 52.6%, p<0.05). Residing in the south-west was associated with not perceiving oneself at risk of COVID-19 infection (W1-AOdds Ratio (AOR) 0.28; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.40; W2-AOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97). There was significant increase in non-compliance to PHSMs in the W2 compared with W1. Non-compliance rate was higher among individuals who perceived themselves not to be at risk of getting infected (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Risk communication and community engagement geared towards increasing risk perception of COVID-19 should be implemented, particularly among the identified population groups. This could increase adherence to PHSMs and potentially reduce the burden of COVID-19 in Nigeria.

COVID-19 mortality rate and its associated factors during the first and second waves in Nigeria.

COVID-19 mortality rate has not been formally assessed in Nigeria. Thus, we aimed to address this gap and identify associated mortality risk factors during the first and second waves in Nigeria. This was a retrospective analysis of national surveillance data from all 37 States in Nigeria between February 27, 2020, and April 3, 2021. The outcome variable was mortality amongst persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction. Incidence rates of COVID-19 mortality was calculated by dividing the number of deaths by total person-time (in days) contributed by the entire study population and presented per 100,000 person-days with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI). Adjusted negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality. Findings are presented as adjusted Incidence Rate Ratios (aIRR) with 95% CI. The first wave included 65,790 COVID-19 patients, of whom 994 (1∙51%) died; the second wave included 91,089 patients, of whom 513 (0∙56%) died. The incidence rate of COVID-19 mortality was higher in the first wave [54∙25 (95% CI: 50∙98-57∙73)] than in the second wave [19∙19 (17∙60-20∙93)]. Factors independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves were: age ≥45 years, male gender [first wave aIRR 1∙65 (1∙35-2∙02) and second wave 1∙52 (1∙11-2∙06)], being symptomatic [aIRR 3∙17 (2∙59-3∙89) and 3∙04 (2∙20-4∙21)], and being hospitalised [aIRR 4∙19 (3∙26-5∙39) and 7∙84 (4∙90-12∙54)]. Relative to South-West, residency in the South-South and North-West was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves. In conclusion, the rate of COVID-19 mortality in Nigeria was higher in the first wave than in the second wave, suggesting an improvement in public health response and clinical care in the second wave. However, this needs to be interpreted with caution given the inherent limitations of the country's surveillance system during the study.

Epidemiology, diagnostics and factors associated with mortality during a cholera epidemic in Nigeria, October 2020-October 2021: a retrospective analysis of national surveillance data.

OBJECTIVES: Nigeria reported an upsurge in cholera cases in October 2020, which then transitioned into a large, disseminated epidemic for most of 2021. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology, diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits and the factors associated with mortality during the epidemic. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of national surveillance data. SETTING: 33 of 37 states (including the Federal Capital Territory) in Nigeria. PARTICIPANTS: Persons who met cholera case definition (a person of any age with acute watery diarrhoea, with or without vomiting) between October 2020 and October 2021 within the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control surveillance data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Attack rate (AR; per 100 000 persons), case fatality rate (CFR; %) and accuracy of RDT performance compared with culture using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Additionally, individual factors associated with cholera deaths and hospitalisation were presented as adjusted OR with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Overall, 93 598 cholera cases and 3298 deaths (CFR: 3.5%) were reported across 33 of 37 states in Nigeria within the study period. The proportions of cholera cases were higher in men aged 5-14 years and women aged 25-44 years. The overall AR was 46.5 per 100 000 persons. The North-West region recorded the highest AR with 102 per 100 000. Older age, male gender, residency in the North-Central region and severe dehydration significantly increased the odds of cholera deaths. The cholera RDT had excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUROC=0.91; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Cholera remains a serious public health threat in Nigeria with a high mortality rate. Thus, we recommend making RDT kits more widely accessible for improved surveillance and prompt case management across the country.

Epidemiological comparison of the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria, February 2020-April 2021.

BACKGROUND: With reports of surges in COVID-19 case numbers across over 50 countries, country-level epidemiological analysis is required to inform context-appropriate response strategies for containment and mitigation of the outbreak. We aimed to compare the epidemiological features of the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Nigeria. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System data of the first and second epidemiological waves, which were between 27 February and 24 October 2020, and 25 October 2020 to 3 April 2021, respectively. Descriptive statistical measures including frequencies and percentages, test positivity rate (TPR), cumulative incidence (CI) and case fatality rates (CFRs) were compared. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out in STATA V.13. RESULTS: There were 802 143 tests recorded during the study period (362 550 and 439 593 in the first and second waves, respectively). Of these, 66 121 (18.2%) and 91 644 (20.8%) tested positive in the first and second waves, respectively. There was a 21.3% increase in the number of tests conducted in the second wave with TPR increasing by 14.3%. CI during the first and second waves were 30.3/100 000 and 42.0/100 000 respectively. During the second wave, confirmed COVID-19 cases increased among females and people 30 years old or younger and decreased among urban residents and individuals with travel history within 14 days of sample collection (p value <0.001). Most confirmed cases were asymptomatic at diagnosis during both waves: 74.9% in the first wave; 79.7% in the second wave. CFR decreased during the second wave (0.7%) compared with the first wave (1.8%). CONCLUSION: Nigeria experienced a larger but less severe second wave of COVID-19. Continued implementation of public health and social measures is needed to mitigate the resurgence of another wave.