Ebola and slum dwellers: Community engagement and epidemic response strategies in urban Sierra Leone.

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa (2013-2016) was a learning process for all - the population, health experts and practitioners, as well as government structures. Learning occurred in all stages of the response, from the initial lack of clarity and denial of Ebola's existence that contributed to public confusion; to the eventual acceptance of the existence of the Ebola threat whereupon fear and stigmatization reigned; to the later stages in which community engagement and ownership of the response arose. In this paper we describe how two urban poor communities in informal settlements in the Western Area of Sierra Leone responded to Ebola Virus Disease and how they deployed efficient strategies like the development and implementation of by-laws for monitoring and surveillance, thus helping to curb the epidemic. For future public health emergencies, we recommend that community engagement be pursued earlier and that efforts are made to ensure two-way knowledge exchange between responders and community stakeholders.

Ebola, informal settlements, and the role of place in infectious disease vulnerability: evidence from the 2014-16 outbreak in urban Sierra Leone.

Studies of vulnerability often focus on the differential susceptibility of marginalised groups to the effects of disaster. This paper considers how vulnerability is also associated with the characteristics of place, especially the social setting of the informal settlement. In this light, it assesses specifically how cultural, historical, and political economic forces resulted in increased vulnerability to Ebola virus disease (EVD) within informal settlements in Sierra Leone during the epidemic of 2014-16. Key informant and community member interviews and focus-group discussions in two communities revealed that increased vulnerability to EVD could, at least in part, be attributed to a set of place-based social factors pertaining to 'community beliefs and practices' (importance of family ties, funeral rites, traditional healing) and 'structural poverty and low socioeconomic status' (poor healthcare provision, mobility patterns, overcrowding). Together, these different factors demonstrate how multiple and intersecting vulnerabilities contribute to the spatial production of disease risk.