Modelización del estado de vacunación contra la COVID-19 y del cumplimiento de las medidas sociales y de salud pública, Región del Mediterráneo Oriental y Argelia

Objective To study the link between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination status and adherence to public health and social measures in Members of the Eastern Mediterranean Region and Algeria. Methods We analysed two rounds of a large, cross-country, repeated cross-sectional mobile phone survey in June–July 2021 and October–November 2021. The rounds included 14 287 and 14 131 respondents, respectively, from 23 countries and territories. Questions covered knowledge, attitudes and practices around COVID-19, and demographic, employment, health and vaccination status. We used logit modelling to analyse the link between self-reported vaccination status and individuals’ practice of mask wearing, physical distancing and handwashing. We used propensity score matching as a robustness check. Findings Overall, vaccinated respondents (8766 respondents in round 2) were significantly more likely to adhere to preventive measures than those who were unvaccinated (5297 respondents in round 2). Odds ratios were 1.5 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.3–1.8) for mask wearing; 1.5 (95% CI: 1.3–1.7) for physical distancing; and 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0–1.4) for handwashing. Similar results were found on analysing subsamples of low-and middle-income countries. However, in high-income countries, where vaccination coverage is high, there was no significant link between vaccination and preventive practices. The association between vaccination status and adherence to public health advice was sustained over time, even though self-reported vaccination coverage tripled over 5 months (19.4% to 62.3%; weighted percentages). Conclusion Individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 maintained their adherence to preventive health measures. Nevertheless, reinforcement of public health messages is important for the public’s continued compliance with preventive measures

Analysis of Joint External Evaluations in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND: Joint External Evaluation (JEE) was developed as a new model of peer-to-peer expert external evaluations of IHR capacities using standardized approaches. AIMS: This study aimed to consolidate findings of these assessments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and assess their significance. METHODS: Analysis of the data were conducted for 14 countries completing JEE in the Region. Mean JEE score for each of the 19 technical areas and for the overall technical areas were calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were done to assess correlations with key health, socio-economic and health system indicators. RESULTS: Mean JEE scores varied substantially across technical areas. The cumulative mean JEE (mean of indicator scores related to that technical area) was 3 (range: 1-4). Antimicrobial resistance, Biosecurity and Biosafety indicators obtained the lowest scores. Medical countermeasures, personnel deployment and linking public health with security capacities had the highest cumulative mean score of 4 (range: 2-5). JEE scores correlated with most of the key indicators examined. Countries with better health financing system, health service coverage and health status generally had higher JEE scores. Adolescent fertility rate, neonatal mortality ratio and net primary school enrollment ratio were primary factors within a country's overall JEE score. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated multisectoral approach, including well-planned cross-cutting health financing system and coverage, are critical to address the key gaps identified by JEEs in order to ensure regional and global health security

World Health Organization Joint External Evaluations in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 2016-17

By 2014, only 33% of countries had self-reported compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), including 8 countries from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). During the Ebola epidemic, the discovery of a gap between objective assessment and self-reports for certain IHR capacities prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to review and update the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework to include a voluntary objective review process, called Joint External Evaluation (JEE), that did not exist before. The regional committee for the EMR approved the JEE and encouraged its 21 member states to volunteer for reviews. Standardized processes and procedures were developed for conducting JEEs. Of the 52 JEEs completed to date globally, 14 (27%) are from the EMR. Three (21%) of 14 member states completing the JEE in the EMR have also worked on a post-JEE national action plan for health security (NAPHS). A survey conducted about the JEE experience from focal points in EMR member states underlined the strengths of the JEE process: its multisectoral and open discussion approach; standardization of the JEE process; WHO's critical role in supporting JEE preparation and conduct; and the need for guidance development for a costed NAPHS. The success of JEEs depends not only on proper preparations and completion of the JEE but also on the development of a country-led, owned, and costed NAPHS and its implementation, including financial commitments along with donor and partners' engagement and coordination

IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries.

Collaborative, One Health approaches support governments to effectively prevent, detect and respond to emerging health challenges, such as zoonotic diseases, that arise at the human-animal-environmental interfaces. To overcome these challenges, operational and outcome-oriented tools that enable animal health and human health services to work specifically on their collaboration are required. While international capacity and assessment frameworks such as the IHR-MEF (International Health Regulations-Monitoring and Evaluation Framework) and the OIE PVS (Performance of Veterinary Services) Pathway exist, a tool and process that could assess and strengthen the interactions between human and animal health sectors was needed. Through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. By integrating sector-specific and collaborative goals, the NBWs help countries in creating a realistic, concrete and practical joint road map for enhanced compliance to international standards as well as strengthened preparedness and response for health security at the human-animal interface

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Doses Using the Health Belief Model : A Cross-Sectional Study in Low-Middle- and High-Income Countries of the East Mediterranean Region

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) booster doses decrease infection transmission and disease severity. This study aimed to assess the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses in low, middle, and high-income countries of the East Mediterranean Region (EMR) and its determinants using the health belief model (HBM). In addition, we aimed to identify the causes of booster dose rejection and the main source of information about vaccination. Using the snowball and convince sampling technique, a bilingual, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire was used to collect the data from 14 EMR countries through different social media platforms. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the key determinants that predict vaccination acceptance among respondents. Overall, 2327 participants responded to the questionnaire. In total, 1468 received compulsory doses of vaccination. Of them, 739 (50.3%) received booster doses and 387 (26.4%) were willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine booster doses. Vaccine booster dose acceptance rates in low, middle, and high-income countries were 73.4%, 67.9%, and 83.0%, respectively (p < 0.001). Participants who reported reliance on information about the COVID-19 vaccination from the Ministry of Health websites were more willing to accept booster doses (79.3% vs. 66.6%, p < 0.001). The leading causes behind booster dose rejection were the beliefs that booster doses have no benefit (48.35%) and have severe side effects (25.6%). Determinants of booster dose acceptance were age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.03, p = 0.002), information provided by the Ministry of Health (OR = 3.40, 95% CI: 1.79–6.49, p = 0.015), perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.21–2.93, p = 0.005), perceived severity of COVID-19 (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 137–3.16, p = 0.001), and perceived risk of side effects (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.19–0.34, p < 0.001). Booster dose acceptance in EMR is relatively high. Interventions based on HBM may provide useful directions for policymakers to enhance the population’s acceptance of booster vaccination