Knowledge of non-communicable diseases and access to healthcare services among adults before and during COVID-19 pandemic in rural Tanzania

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected access to healthcare services, particularly among individuals living with Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) who require regular healthcare visits. Studies suggest that knowledge about a specific disease is closely linked to the ability to access services for that condition. In preparation for the future, we conducted the study to assess knowledge of NCDs and access to healthcare services among adults residing in rural areas before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a community-based cross-sectional study in rural Tanzania in October 2022, a few months after the end of the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 689 community residents participated in the study. The level of knowledge of NCDs was assessed using an 11-item Likert questionnaire, which was later dichotomized into adequate and inadequate levels of knowledge. In addition, access to healthcare was assessed before and during the pandemic. We summarized the results using descriptive statistics and logistic regression was applied to determine factors associated with adequate levels of knowledge of NCDs. All statistical tests were two-sided; a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data analyses were performed using SPSS.ResultsAmong 689 participants, more than half 369 (55%) had adequate knowledge of whether a disease is NCD or not; specifically, 495 (73.8%), 465 (69.3%), and 349 (52%) knew that hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and stroke are NCDs while 424 (63.2%) know that UTI is not NCD. Of the interviewed participants, 75 (11.2%) had at least one NCD. During the COVID-19 pandemic the majority 57 (72.2%) accessed healthcare services from nearby health facilities followed by traditional healers 10 (12.7%) and community drug outlets 8 (10.1%). Residence and education level were found to be significantly associated with knowledge of NCDs among participants.ConclusionThe study revealed that the community has a moderate level of knowledge of NCDs, and during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreaks, people living with NCD (s) relied on nearby health facilities to obtain healthcare services. Health system preparedness and response to pandemics should take into account empowering the community members to understand that NCD care is continuously needed even during pandemic times. We further advocate for a qualitative study to explore contextual factors influencing the knowledge of NCDs and access to healthcare services beyond the big domains of education and residence

African Lion Population Estimates in Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park

Tanzania is considered a country with the largest number of African lions (Panthera leo). However, the continued absence of ecological population estimates and understanding of the associated factors influencing lion distribution hinders the development of conservation planning. This is particularly true in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, where it was estimated that more than 10% of the global lion population currently resides. By using a call-back survey method, we aimed to provide population estimates (population size and density) of African lions in the Ruaha National Park, between wet (March 2019) and dry (October 2019) seasons. We also assessed the key factors that influenced the distribution of the observed lions towards call-back stations. Ferreira & Funston’s (2010) formula was used to calculate population size and in turn used to estimate density in the sampled area, while the Generalized Linear Model (GLMM) with zero-inflated Poisson error distribution was used to determine factors that influence the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. The population size we calculated for the sampled area of 3137.2 km2 revealed 286 lions (95% CI, 236 - 335) during the wet season, and 196 lions (95% CI, 192 - 200) during the dry season. The density of lions was 9.1/100 km2 during the wet season, and 6.3/100 km2 during the dry season. Distance to water source had a significant negative effect on the distribution of the observed lions to the call-back stations, while habitat had a marginal effect. Our findings show that, although lion population estimates were larger during the wet season than the dry season, the season had no effect on the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. We suggest that the proximity to water sources is important in study design. Further, we suggest that density and population size are useful indices in identifying conservation area priorities and lion coexistence strategies

A systematic review of risk factors associated with road traffic crashes and injuries among commercial motorcycle drivers

To effectively reduce road traffic crashes (RTCs) and injuries interventions should be based on firm evidence regarding risk factors of RTCs and injuries in that specific population. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to determine risk factors of RTCs and injuries among commercial motorcycle drivers. Searches were performed from inception to May 2022 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO and Cinahl, along with registers and reference lists. Inclusion criteria were commercial motorcycle drivers, quantitative observational studies, and RTCs and injuries. The search resulted in 1546 articles, of which 20 met the relevance and quality criteria. Of the 20 articles, 17 were cross-sectional, 2 were case-control studies, and one was a cohort study. Close to half of all articles (9) came from sub-Saharan Africa. Risk factors with consistent association with RTCs and injuries were young age, low education level, alcohol consumption, speeding, mobile phone use, non-helmet use, risky driving behaviours and long working hours. There was inconclusive evidence for driver’s training, work schedules, motorcycle ownership, experience, dependents number, and marital status. More robust designs such as case-control or longitudinal studies are required to gain a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of RTCs among commercial motorcycle drivers.</p

African lion population estimates in Tanzania’s Ruaha National Park

Tanzania is considered a country with the largest number of African lions (Panthera leo). However, the continued absence of ecological population estimates and understanding of the associated factors influencing lion distribution hinders the development of conservation planning. This is particularly true in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape, where it was estimated that more than 10% of the global lion population currently resides. By using a call-back survey method, we aimed to provide population estimates (population size and density) of African lions in the Ruaha National Park, between wet (March 2019) and dry (October 2019) seasons. We also assessed the key factors that influenced the distribution of the observed lions towards call-back stations. Ferreira & Funston’s (2010) formula was used to calculate population size and in turn used to estimate density in the sampled area, while the Generalized Linear Model (GLMM) with zero-inflated Poisson error distribution was used to determine factors that influence the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. The population size we calculated for the sampled area of 3137.2 km2 revealed 286 lions (95% CI, 236 - 335) during the wet season, and 196 lions (95% CI, 192 - 200) during the dry season. The density of lions was 9.1/100 km2 during the wet season, and 6.3/100 km2 during the dry season. Distance to water source had a significant negative effect on the distribution of the observed lions to the call-back stations, while habitat had a marginal effect. Our findings show that, although lion population estimates were larger during the wet season than the dry season, the season had no effect on the distribution of the observed lions to call-back stations. We suggest that the proximity to water sources is important in study design. Further, we suggest that density and population size are useful indices in identifying conservation area priorities and lion coexistence strategies

Governance and Conservation Effectiveness in Protected Areas and Indigenous and Locally Managed Areas

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-MIncreased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value

Governance and conservation effectiveness in protected areas and indigenous and locally managed areas

Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value

Governance and conservation effectiveness in protected areas and indigenous and locally managed areas

D.B. would like to acknowledge the funded support of the European Union (ERC, CONDJUST, 101054259). D.B. would further like to acknowledge that this work contributes to ICTA-UAB “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). N.J. would like to acknowledge that financial support was provided by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research programme (Project FIDELIO, grant agreement no. 802605).Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe