The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's learning and wellbeing: Evidence from India.

We study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated school closure on primary school children's learning and mental wellbeing in Assam, India. Using a comprehensive dataset that tracked and repeatedly surveyed approximately 5000 children across 200 schools between 2018 and 2022, we find that children lost the equivalent of nine months of learning in mathematics and eleven months in language, during the pandemic. Children lacking resources and parental support experienced the largest losses. Regular practice, teacher interaction, and technology were associated with less learning loss. Over the same period, children's psychological wellbeing improved. Our research provides valuable insights for designing post-emergency programs.

HIV, risk, and time preferences: Evidence from a general population sample in Lesotho.

Identifying individuals most at risk of HIV infection is a priority for policymakers. Apart from specific groups, however, little is known about how to identify those at high risk in the population. Research suggests that attitudes toward risk and time preferences may influence risky sexual behavior, but no studies have so far investigated the interplay between risk attitudes, time preference, and HIV infection. We collect data on risk and time preferences using hypothetical games (multiple price list method) at baseline and data on HIV status at baseline (2010) and endline (2012) allowing us to calculate incidence rate over a 2-year period among 675 participants, males and females 18-32 years old in Lesotho. We find robust evidence of a statistically significant positive associations between HIV incidence and prevalence and risk-loving attitudes, while the associations with risky behaviors and time preferences are not statistically significant. A measure of attitude toward risk, relatively easy to administer to individuals in a survey, is thus associated with future HIV status. This is an important finding for policymakers and suggests the importance of targeting HIV prevention programs to risk-loving individuals and therefore improving program efficiency.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries.

Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs.

Associations between birth kit use and maternal and neonatal health outcomes in rural Jigawa state, Nigeria: A secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The burden of maternal and neonatal mortality remains persistently high in Nigeria. Sepsis contributes significantly to both maternal and newborn mortality, and safe delivery kits have long been promoted as a cost-effective intervention to ensure hygienic delivery practices and reduce sepsis. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of home birth kit distribution by community health workers, and particularly the impact of this intervention on health outcomes. This paper reports a secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial in rural northern Nigeria in which birth kits were distributed by community health workers to pregnant women in their homes, analyzing non-experimental variation in receipt and use of birth kits. More specifically, associations between pregnant women's baseline characteristics and receipt and use of birth kits, and associations between birth kit use, care utilization and maternal and newborn outcomes were assessed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Baseline, post-birth and endline data related to 3,317 births observed over a period of three years in 72 intervention communities in Jigawa state, Nigeria, were analyzed using hierarchical, logistic regression models. In total, 140 women received birth kits, and 72 women used the kits. There were no associations between baseline demographic characteristics, health history, and knowledge and attitudes and receipt of a kit, suggesting that community health workers did not systematically target the distribution of birth kits. However, women who used the kit reported reduced odds of past pregnancy complications (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19-1.00) as well as significantly higher odds of feeling generally healthy at baseline (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.06-3.76), of exposure to radio media (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.21-3.22), and of perceiving themselves as having a low-risk pregnancy (OR = 3.05, 95% CI:1.39-6.68). While there were no significant associations between birth kit use and facility based delivery, skilled birth attendance or post-natal care, women who used a kit exhibited significantly lower odds of completing four or more ANC visits (adjusted OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18-0.85) and significantly higher odds of reporting prolonged labor (adjusted OR = 4.75, 95% CI: 1.36-16.59), and post-partum bleeding (adjusted OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.11-9.52). CONCLUSIONS: This evidence suggests that use of birth kits is low in a rural population characterized by minimal baseline utilization of maternal and neonatal health services, and the use of birth kits was not associated with reductions in maternal or neonatal morbidity. While further research is required to understand how the effectiveness of birth kits may be shaped by the mechanism through which women access and utilize the kits, our findings suggest that the provision of kits to women outside of the formal health system may be associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes.