Drivers of COVID-19 policy stringency in 175 countries and territories: COVID-19 cases and deaths, gross domestic products per capita, and health expenditures.

Background: New data on COVID-19 may influence the stringency of containment policies, but these potential effect are not understood. We aimed to understand the associations of new COVID-19 cases and deaths with policy stringency globally and regionally. Methods: We modelled the marginal effects of new COVID-19 cases and deaths on policy stringency (scored 0-100) in 175 countries and territories, adjusting for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and health expenditure (% of GDP), and public expenditure on health. The time periods examined were March to August 2020, September 2020 to February 2021, and March to August 2021. Results: Policy response to new cases and deaths was faster and more stringent early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March to August 2020) compared to subsequent periods. New deaths were more strongly associated with stringent policies than new cases. In an average week, one new death per 100 000 people was associated with a stringency increase of 2.1 units in the March to August 2020 period, 1.3 units in the September 2020 to February 2021 period, and 0.7 units in the March to August 2021 period. New deaths in Africa and the Western Pacific were associated with more stringency than in other regions. Higher health expenditure as a percentage of GDP was associated with less stringent policies. Similarly, higher public expenditure on health by governments was mostly associated with less stringency across all three periods. GDP per capita did not have consistent patterns of associations with stringency. Conclusions: The stringency of COVID-19 policies was more strongly associated with new deaths than new cases. Our findings demonstrate the need for enhanced mortality surveillance to ensure policy alignment during health emergencies. Countries that invest less in health or have a lower public expenditure on health may be inclined to enact more stringent policies. This new empirical understanding of COVID-19 policy drivers can help public health officials anticipate and shape policy responses in future health emergencies.

Behaviour adoption approaches during public health emergencies: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Human behaviour will continue to play an important role as the world grapples with public health threats. In this paper, we draw from the emerging evidence on behaviour adoption during diverse public health emergencies to develop a framework that contextualises behaviour adoption vis-à-vis a combination of top-down, intermediary and bottom-up approaches. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we operationalise the contextual framework to demonstrate how these three approaches differ in terms of their implementation, underlying drivers of action, enforcement, reach and uptake. We illustrate how blended strategies that include all three approaches can help accelerate and sustain protective behaviours that will remain important even when safe and effective vaccines become more widely available. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares to respond to (re)emerging public health threats, our contextual framework can inform the design, implementation, tracking and evaluation of comprehensive public health and social measures during health emergencies.

Evidence of behaviour change during an Ebola virus disease outbreak, Sierra Leone.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in Ebola-related knowledge, attitudes and prevention practices during the Sierra Leone outbreak between 2014 and 2015. METHODS: Four cluster surveys were conducted: two before the outbreak peak (3499 participants) and two after (7104 participants). We assessed the effect of temporal and geographical factors on 16 knowledge, attitude and practice outcomes. FINDINGS: Fourteen of 16 knowledge, attitude and prevention practice outcomes improved across all regions from before to after the outbreak peak. The proportion of respondents willing to: (i) welcome Ebola survivors back into the community increased from 60.0% to 89.4% (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 6.0; 95% confidence interval, CI: 3.9-9.1); and (ii) wait for a burial team following a relative's death increased from 86.0% to 95.9% (aOR: 4.4; 95% CI: 3.2-6.0). The proportion avoiding unsafe traditional burials increased from 27.3% to 48.2% (aOR: 3.1; 95% CI: 2.4-4.2) and the proportion believing spiritual healers can treat Ebola decreased from 15.9% to 5.0% (aOR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1-0.3). The likelihood respondents would wait for burial teams increased more in high-transmission (aOR: 6.2; 95% CI: 4.2-9.1) than low-transmission (aOR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.4-3.8) regions. Self-reported avoidance of physical contact with corpses increased in high but not low-transmission regions, aOR: 1.9 (95% CI: 1.4-2.5) and aOR: 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6-1.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Ebola knowledge, attitudes and prevention practices improved during the Sierra Leone outbreak, especially in high-transmission regions. Behaviourally-targeted community engagement should be prioritized early during outbreaks.

Ebola vaccine? Family first! Evidence from using a brief measure on Ebola vaccine demand in a national household survey during the outbreak in Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against Ebolavirus is an emerging public health tool during Ebola Virus Disease outbreaks. We examined demand issues related to deployment of Ebolavirus vaccine during the 2014-2015 outbreak in Sierra Leone. METHODS: A cluster survey was administered to a population-based sample in December 2014 (N = 3540), before any Ebola vaccine was available to the general public in Sierra Leone. Ebola vaccine demand was captured in this survey by three Likert-scale items that were used to develop a composite score and dichotomized into a binary outcome to define high demand. A multilevel logistic regression model was fitted to assess the associations between perceptions of who should be first to receive an Ebola vaccine and the expression of high demand for an Ebola vaccine. RESULTS: The largest proportion of respondents reported that health workers (35.1%) or their own families (29.5%) should receive the vaccine first if it became available, rather than politicians (13.8%), vaccination teams (9.8%), or people in high risk areas (8.2%). High demand for an Ebola vaccine was expressed by 74.2% of respondents nationally. The odds of expressing high demand were 13 times greater among those who said they or their families should be the first to take the vaccine compared to those who said politicians should be the first recipients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 13.0 [95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8-21.6]). The ultra-brief measure of the Ebola vaccine demand demonstrated acceptable scale reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.79) and construct validity (single-factor loadings > 0.50). CONCLUSION: Perceptions of who should be the first to get the vaccine was associated with high demand for Ebola vaccine around the peak of the outbreak in Sierra Leone. Using an ultra-brief measure of Ebola vaccine demand is a feasible solution in outbreak settings and can help inform development of future rapid assessment tools.