The response is like a big ship': community feedback as a case study of evidence uptake and use in the 2018-2020 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

INTRODUCTION: The 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) took place in the highly complex protracted crisis regions of North Kivu and Ituri. The Red Cross developed a community feedback (CF) data collection process through the work of hundreds of Red Cross personnel, who gathered unprompted feedback in order to inform the response coordination mechanism and decision-making. AIM: To understand how a new CF system was used to make operational and strategic decisions by Ebola response leadership. METHODS: Qualitative data collection in November 2019 in Goma and Beni (DRC), including document review, observation of meetings and CF activities, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. FINDINGS: The credibility and use of different evidence types was affected by the experiential and academic backgrounds of the consumers of that evidence. Ebola response decision-makers were often medics or epidemiologists who tended to view quantitative evidence as having more rigour than qualitative evidence. The process of taking in and using evidence in the Ebola response was affected by decision-makers' bandwidth to parse large volumes of data coming from a range of different sources. The operationalisation of those data into decisions was hampered by the size of the response and an associated reduction in agility to new evidence. CONCLUSION: CF data collection has both instrumental and intrinsic value for outbreak response and should be normalised as a critical data stream; however, a failure to act on those data can further frustrate communities.

Using Community Feedback to Guide the COVID-19 Response in Sub-Saharan Africa: Red Cross and Red Crescent Approach and Lessons Learned from Ebola.

Risk communication and community engagement are critical elements of epidemic response. Despite progress made in this area, few examples of regional feedback mechanisms in Africa provide information on community concerns and perceptions in real time. To enable humanitarian responders to move beyond disseminating messages, work in partnership with communities, listen to their ideas, identify community-led solutions, and support implementation of solutions systems need to be in place for documenting, analyzing, and acting on community feedback. This article describes how the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and its national societies in sub-Saharan Africa have worked to establish and strengthen systems to ensure local intelligence and community insights inform operational decision making. As part of the COVID-19 response, a system was set up to collect, compile, and analyze unstructured community feedback from across the region. We describe how this system was set up based on a system piloted in the response to Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which tools were adapted and shared across the region, and how the information gathered was used to shape and adapt the response of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the broader humanitarian response.

New Mixed Methods Approach for Monitoring Community Perceptions of Ebola and Response Efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to contain the spread of Ebola in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) during the 2018-2020 epidemic faced challenges in gaining community trust and participation. This affected implementation of community alerts, early isolation, contact tracing, vaccination, and safe and dignified burials. To quickly understand community perspectives and improve community engagement, collaborators from the DRC Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explored a new method of collecting, coding, and quickly analyzing community feedback. METHODS: Over 800 DRC Red Cross local volunteers recorded unstructured, free-text questions and comments from community members during community Ebola awareness activities. Comments were coded and analyzed using a text-coding system developed by the collaborators. Coded comments were then aggregated and qualitatively grouped into major themes, and time trends were examined. RESULTS: Communities reported a lack of information about the outbreak and the response, as well as concerns about the Ebola vaccination program and health care quality. Some doubted that Ebola was real. The response used the feedback to revise some community engagement approaches. For example, 2 procedural changes that were followed by drops in negative community responses were: using transparent body bags, which allayed fears that bodies or organs were being stolen, and widening the eligibility criteria for Ebola vaccination, which addressed concerns that selectively vaccinating individuals within Ebola-affected communities was unfair. DISCUSSION: This system is unique in that unstructured feedback collected by local volunteers in the course of their work was rapidly coded, analyzed, and given to health authorities for use in making course corrections throughout the response. It provides a platform for local voices to be heard throughout an emergency response and provides a mechanism for assessing the effects of program adjustments on community sentiments.

Biological Risks to Public Health: Lessons from an International Conference to Inform the Development of National Risk Communication Strategies.

Biological risk management in public health focuses on the impact of outbreaks on health, the economy, and other systems and on ensuring biosafety and biosecurity. To address this broad range of risks, the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) request that all member states build defined core capacities, risk communication being one of them. While there is existing guidance on the communication process and on what health authorities need to consider to design risk communication strategies that meet the requirements on a governance level, little has been done on implementation because of a number of factors, including lack of resources (human, financial, and others) and systems to support effective and consistent capacity for risk communication. The international conference on "Risk communication strategies before, during and after public health emergencies" provided a platform to present current strategies, facilitate learning from recent outbreaks of infectious diseases, and discuss recommendations to inform risk communication strategy development. The discussion concluded with 4 key areas for improvement in risk communication: consider communication as a multidimensional process in risk communication, broaden the biomedical paradigm by integrating social science intelligence into epidemiologic risk assessments, strengthen multisectoral collaboration including with local organizations, and spearhead changes in organizations for better risk communication governance. National strategies should design risk communication to be proactive, participatory, and multisectoral, facilitating the connection between sectors and strengthening collaboration.