Psychosocial determinants of adherence to public health and social measures (PHSMs) in 18 African Union Member States during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of the psychosocial and sociodemographic factors that affected adherence to COVID-19 public health and social measures (PHSMs), and to identify the factors that most strongly related to whether citizens followed public health guidance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative telephone surveys were conducted from 4-17 August 2020 in 18 African Union Member States. A total of 21 600 adults (mean age=32.7 years, SD=11.4) were interviewed (1200 in each country). OUTCOME MEASURES: Information including sociodemographics, adherence to PHSMs and psychosocial variables was collected. Logistic regression models examined the association between PHSM adherence (eg, physical distancing, gathering restrictions) and sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics (eg, risk perception, trust). Factors affecting adherence were ranked using the Shapley regression decomposition method. RESULTS: Adherence to PHSMs was high, with better adherence to personal than community PHSMs (65.5% vs 30.2%, p<0.05). Psychosocial measures were significantly associated with personal and community PHSMs (p<0.05). Women and older adults demonstrated better adherence to personal PHSMs (adjusted OR (aOR): women=1.43, age=1.01, p<0.05) and community PHSMs (aOR: women=1.57, age=1.01, p<0.05). Secondary education was associated with better adherence only to personal PHSMs (aOR=1.22, p<0.05). Rural residence and access to running water were associated with better adherence to community PHSMs (aOR=1.12 and 1.18, respectively, p<0.05). The factors that most affected adherence to personal PHSMs were: self-efficacy; trust in hospitals/health centres; knowledge about face masks; trust in the president; and gender. For community PHSMs they were: gender; trust in the president; access to running water; trust in hospitals/health centres; and risk perception. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial factors, particularly trust in authorities and institutions, played a critical role in PHSM adherence. Adherence to community PHSMs was lower than personal PHSMs since they can impose significant burdens, particularly on the socially vulnerable.

Assessing and Reducing Risk to Healthcare Workers in Outbreaks.

The 2014-2016 West African Ebola epidemic was devastating in many respects, not least of which was the impact on healthcare systems and their health workforce. Healthcare workers-including physicians, clinical officers, nurses, midwives, and community health workers-serve on the front lines of efforts to detect, control, and stop the spread of disease. Risk mitigation strategies, including infection prevention and control (IPC) practices, are meant to keep healthcare workers safe from occupational exposure to disease and to protect patients from healthcare-associated infections. Despite ongoing IPC efforts, steady rates of both healthcare-associated and healthcare worker infections signal that these mitigation measures have been inadequate at all levels and present a potential critical point of failure in efforts to limit and control the spread of outbreaks. The fact that healthcare workers continue to be infected or are a source of infection during public health emergencies reveals a weakness in global preparedness efforts. Identification of key points of failure-both within the health system and during emergencies-is the first step to mitigating risk of exposure. A 2-pronged solution is proposed to address long-term gaps in the health system that impact infection control and emergency response: prioritization of IPC for epidemic preparedness at a global level and development and use of rapid risk assessments to prioritize risk mitigation strategies for IPC. Without global support, evidence, and systems in place to support the lives of healthcare workers, the lives of their patients and the health system in general are also at risk.

The costs of delivering vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: Findings from a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Information on immunization delivery costs (IDCs) is essential for better planning and budgeting for the sustainability and performance of national programs. However, delivery cost evidence is fragmented and of variable quality, making it difficult for policymakers, planners, and other stakeholders to understand and use. This study aimed to consolidate and summarize the evidence on delivery costs, answering the question: What are the unit costs of vaccine delivery across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and through a variety of delivery strategies? METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of over 15,000 published and unpublished resources from 2005 to 2018 that included IDCs in LMICs. We quality-rated and extracted data from 61 resources that contained 410 immunization delivery unit costs (e.g., cost per dose, cost per fully immunized child). We converted cost findings to a common year (2016) and currency (U.S. dollars) to ensure comparability across studies and settings. We performed a descriptive and gap analysis and developed immunization delivery cost ranges using comparable unit costs for single vaccines and schedules of vaccines. RESULTS: The majority of IDC evidence comes from low-income countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. Most unit costs are presented as cost per dose and represent health facility-based delivery. DISCUSSION: The cost ranges may be higher than current estimates used in many LMICs for budgeting: $0.16-$2.54 incremental cost per dose (including economic, financial, and fiscal costs) for single, newly introduced vaccines, and $0.75-$9.45 full cost per dose (economic costs) for schedules of four to eight vaccines delivered to children under one. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased attention on improving coverage and strengthening immunization delivery, evidence on the cost of delivery is nascent but growing. The cost ranges can inform planning and policymaking, but should be used with caution given their width and the few unit costs used in their development.

A novel personal protective equipment coverall was rated higher than standard Ebola virus personal protective equipment in terms of comfort, mobility and perception of safety when tested by health care workers in Liberia and in a United States biocontainment unit.

BACKGROUND: During the 2014-2016 Ebola virus epidemic, more than 500 health care workers (HCWs) died in spite of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The Johns Hopkins University Center for Bioengineering Innovation and Design (CBID) and Jhpiego, an international nongovernmental organization affiliate of Johns Hopkins, collaborated to create new PPE to improve the ease of the doffing process. METHODS: HCWs in Liberia and a US biocontainment unit compared standard Médecins Sans Frontière PPE (PPE A) with the new PPE (PPE B). Participants wore each PPE ensemble while performing simulated patient care activities. Range of motion, time to doff, comfort, and perceived risk were measured. RESULTS: Overall, 100% of participants preferred PPE B over PPE A (P < .0001); 98.1% of respondents would recommend PPE B for their home clinical unit (P < .0001). There was a trend towards greater comfort in PPE B. HCWs at both sites felt more at risk in PPE A than PPE B (71.9% vs 25% in Liberia, P < .0001; 100% vs 40% in the US biocontainment unit, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs preferred a new PPE ensemble to Médecins Sans Frontière PPE for high-consequence pathogens. Further studies on the safety of this new PPE need to be conducted.