Uganda's experience in Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness, 2018-2019.

BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the 10th Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in DRC on 1st Aug 2018, several neighboring countries have been developing and implementing preparedness efforts to prevent EVD cross-border transmission to enable timely detection, investigation, and response in the event of a confirmed EVD outbreak in the country. We describe Uganda's experience in EVD preparedness. RESULTS: On 4 August 2018, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) and the National Task Force (NTF) for public health emergencies to plan, guide, and coordinate EVD preparedness in the country. The NTF selected an Incident Management Team (IMT), constituting a National Rapid Response Team (NRRT) that supported activation of the District Task Forces (DTFs) and District Rapid Response Teams (DRRTs) that jointly assessed levels of preparedness in 30 designated high-risk districts representing category 1 (20 districts) and category 2 (10 districts). The MoH, with technical guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), led EVD preparedness activities and worked together with other ministries and partner organisations to enhance community-based surveillance systems, develop and disseminate risk communication messages, engage communities, reinforce EVD screening and infection prevention measures at Points of Entry (PoEs) and in high-risk health facilities, construct and equip EVD isolation and treatment units, and establish coordination and procurement mechanisms. CONCLUSION: As of 31 May 2019, there was no confirmed case of EVD as Uganda has continued to make significant and verifiable progress in EVD preparedness. There is a need to sustain these efforts, not only in EVD preparedness but also across the entire spectrum of a multi-hazard framework. These efforts strengthen country capacity and compel the country to avail resources for preparedness and management of incidents at the source while effectively cutting costs of using a "fire-fighting" approach during public health emergencies

Characteristics of participants.

<p>^aBMI = Body Mass Index in kilograms per squared meters (kg/m²)</p><p>^bFPG = Fasting plasma glucose in millimoles per liter (mmol/L)</p><p>^cDM Rx = Diabetes Mellitus Treatment</p><p>^dWHO = World Health Organization</p><p>Characteristics of participants.</p

Crude and adjusted prevalence risk ratio estimates for hypertension.

<p>^ѰAdjusted for: region, sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, and alcohol use</p><p>^aBMI = Body Mass Index</p><p>^bFPG = Fasting plasma glucose</p><p>^cDM Rx = Diabetes Mellitus Treatment</p><p>^dWHO = World Health Organization</p><p>Crude and adjusted prevalence risk ratio estimates for hypertension.</p

Distribution of hypertension by population characteristics (un-adjusted).

<p>^aBMI = Body Mass Index in kilograms per squared meters (kg/m²)</p><p>^bFPG = Fasting plasma glucose in millimoles per liter (mmol/L)</p><p>^cDM Rx = Diabetes Mellitus Treatment</p><p>^dWHO = World Health Organization</p><p>Distribution of hypertension by population characteristics (un-adjusted).</p

The reported impact of non-communicable disease investment cases in 13 countries

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading health and development challenge worldwide. Since 2015, WHO and the United Nations Development Programme have provided support to governments to develop national NCD investment cases to describe the socioeconomic dimensions of NCDs. To assess the impact of the investment cases, semistructured interviews and a structured process for gathering written feedback were conducted between July and October 2022 with key informants in 13 countries who had developed a national NCD investment case between 2015 and 2020. Investment cases describe: (1) the social and economic costs of NCDs, including their distribution and projections over time; (2) priority areas for scaled up action; (3) the cost and returns from investing in WHO-recommended measures to prevent and manage NCDs; and (4) the political dimensions of NCD responses. While no country had implemented all the recommendations set out in their investment case reports, actions and policy changes attributable to the investment cases were identified, across (1) governance; (2) financing; and (3) health service access and delivery. The pathways of these changes included: (1) stronger collaboration across government ministries and partners; (2) advocacy for NCD prevention and control; (3) grounding efforts in nationally owned data and evidence; (4) developing mutually embraced ‘language’ across health and finance; and (5) elevating the priority accorded to NCDs, by framing action as an investment rather than a cost. The assessment also identified barriers to progress on the investment case implementation, including the influence of some private sector entities on sectors other than health, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in senior political and technical government officials. The results suggest that national NCD investment cases can significantly contribute to catalysing the prevention and control of NCDs through strengthening governance, financing, and health service access and delivery