Lockdown measures in response to COVID-19 in nine sub-Saharan African countries

Lockdown measures have been introduced worldwide to contain the transmission of COVID-19. However, the term ‘lockdown’ is not well-defined. Indeed, WHO’s reference to ‘so-called lockdown measures’ indicates the absence of a clear and universally accepted definition of the term ‘lockdown’. We propose a definition of ‘lockdown’ based on a two-by-two matrix that categorises different communicable disease measures based on whether they are compulsory or voluntary; and whether they are targeted at identifiable individuals or facilities, or whether they are applied indiscriminately to a general population or area. Using this definition, we describe the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures in nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. While there were some commonalities in the implementation of lockdown across these countries, a more notable finding was the variation in the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures. We also found that the number of reported cases is heavily dependent on the number of tests carried out, and that testing rates ranged from 2031 to 63 928 per million population up until 7 September 2020. The reported number of COVID-19 deaths per million population also varies (0.4 to 250 up until 7 September 2020), but is generally low when compared with countries in Europe and North America. While lockdown measures may have helped inhibit community transmission, the pattern and nature of the epidemic remains unclear. However, there are signs of lockdown harming health by affecting the functioning of the health system and causing social and economic disruption

Lockdown measures in response to COVID-19 in nine sub-Saharan African countries

Lockdown measures have been introduced worldwide to contain the transmission of COVID-19. However, the term ‘lockdown’ is not well-defined. Indeed, WHO’s reference to ‘so-called lockdown measures’ indicates the absence of a clear and universally accepted definition of the term ‘lockdown’. We propose a definition of ‘lockdown’ based on a two-by-two matrix that categorises different communicable disease measures based on whether they are compulsory or voluntary; and whether they are targeted at identifiable individuals or facilities, or whether they are applied indiscriminately to a general population or area. Using this definition, we describe the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures in nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. While there were some commonalities in the implementation of lockdown across these countries, a more notable finding was the variation in the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures. We also found that the number of reported cases is heavily dependent on the number of tests carried out, and that testing rates ranged from 2031 to 63 928 per million population up until 7 September 2020. The reported number of COVID-19 deaths per million population also varies (0.4 to 250 up until 7 September 2020), but is generally low when compared with countries in Europe and North America. While lockdown measures may have helped inhibit community transmission, the pattern and nature of the epidemic remains unclear. However, there are signs of lockdown harming health by affecting the functioning of the health system and causing social and economic disruption

Identifying research priorities in musculoskeletal trauma care in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background: In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), individuals suffer from a disproportionately higher number of musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries compared with those living in a high-income setting. However, despite the higher burden of death and disability from MSK injuries in LMICs, there has been little policy, research, and funding invested in addressing this distinctly overlooked problem. Using a consensus-based approach, the aim of this study was to identify research priorities for clinical trials and research in MSK trauma care across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: A modified Delphi technique was utilized; it involved an initial scoping survey, a 2-round Delphi process, and, finally, review by an expert panel with members of the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa. This study was conducted among MSK health-care practitioners treating trauma in sub-Saharan Africa. Results: Participants from 34 countries across sub-Saharan Africa contributed to the 2 rounds of the Delphi process, and priorities were scored from 1 (low priority) to 5 (high priority). Public health topics related to trauma care ranked higher than those focused on clinical effectiveness, with the top 10 public health research questions scoring higher than the top 10 questions for clinical effectiveness. Ten public health and 10 clinical effectiveness questions related to MSK trauma care were identified; the highest-ranked questions in the respective categories were related to education and training and to the management of femoral fractures. Conclusions: This consensus-driven research priority study will guide health-care professionals, academics, researchers, and funders to improve the evidence on MSK trauma care across sub-Saharan Africa and inform funders about priority areas of future research

Identifying research priorities in musculoskeletal trauma care in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background: In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), individuals suffer from a disproportionately higher number of musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries compared with those living in a high-income setting. However, despite the higher burden of death and disability from MSK injuries in LMICs, there has been little policy, research, and funding invested in addressing this distinctly overlooked problem. Using a consensus-based approach, the aim of this study was to identify research priorities for clinical trials and research in MSK trauma care across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: A modified Delphi technique was utilized; it involved an initial scoping survey, a 2-round Delphi process, and, finally, review by an expert panel with members of the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa. This study was conducted among MSK health-care practitioners treating trauma in sub-Saharan Africa. Results: Participants from 34 countries across sub-Saharan Africa contributed to the 2 rounds of the Delphi process, and priorities were scored from 1 (low priority) to 5 (high priority). Public health topics related to trauma care ranked higher than those focused on clinical effectiveness, with the top 10 public health research questions scoring higher than the top 10 questions for clinical effectiveness. Ten public health and 10 clinical effectiveness questions related to MSK trauma care were identified; the highest-ranked questions in the respective categories were related to education and training and to the management of femoral fractures. Conclusions: This consensus-driven research priority study will guide health-care professionals, academics, researchers, and funders to improve the evidence on MSK trauma care across sub-Saharan Africa and inform funders about priority areas of future research