Sero-prevalence and risk factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection in women and children in a rural district of Bangladesh: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Bangladesh reported its first COVID-19 case on March 8, 2020. Despite lockdowns and promoting behavioural interventions, as of December 31, 2021, Bangladesh reported 1.5 million confirmed cases and 27 904 COVID-19-related deaths. To understand the course of the pandemic and identify risk factors for SARs-Cov-2 infection, we conducted a cohort study from November 2020 to December 2021 in rural Bangladesh. METHODS: After obtaining informed consent and collecting baseline data on COVID-19 knowledge, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle, we collected data on COVID-like illness and care-seeking weekly for 54 weeks for women (n = 2683) and their children (n = 2433). Between March and July 2021, we tested all participants for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using ROCHE's Elecsys® test kit. We calculated seropositivity rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) separately for women and children. In addition, we calculated unadjusted and adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of seropositivity for different age and risk groups using log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: Overall, about one-third of women (35.8%, 95% CI = 33.7-37.9) and one-fifth of children (21.3%, 95% CI = 19.2-23.6) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The seroprevalence rate doubled for women and tripled for children between March 2021 and July 2021. Compared to women and children with the highest household wealth (HHW) tertile, both women and children from poorer households had a lower risk of infection (RR, 95% CI for lowest HHW tertile women (0.83 (0.71-0.97)) and children (0.75 (0.57-0.98)). Most infections were asymptomatic or mild. In addition, the risk of infection among women was higher if she reported chewing tobacco (RR = 1.19,95% CI = 1.03-1.38) and if her husband had an occupation requiring him to work indoors (RR = 1.16,  95% CI = 1.02-1.32). The risk of infection was higher among children if paternal education was >5 years (RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.10-1.71) than in children with a paternal education of ≤5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We provided prospectively collected population-based data, which could contribute to designing feasible strategies against COVID-19 tailored to high-risk groups. The most feasible strategy may be promoting preventive care practices; however, collecting data on reported practices is inadequate. More in-depth understanding of the factors related to adoption and adherence to the practices is essential

Neonatal mortality risk of vulnerable newborns: A descriptive analysis of subnational, population-based birth cohorts for 238 143 live births in low- and middle-income settings from 2000 to 2017

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the mortality risks of vulnerable newborns (defined as preterm and/or born weighing smaller or larger compared to a standard population), in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Descriptive multi-country, secondary analysis of individual-level study data of babies born since 2000. SETTING: Sixteen subnational, population-based studies from nine LMICs in sub-Saharan Africa, Southern and Eastern Asia, and Latin America. POPULATION: Live birth neonates. METHODS: We categorically defined five vulnerable newborn types based on size (large- or appropriate- or small-for-gestational age [LGA, AGA, SGA]), and term (T) and preterm (PT): T + LGA, T + SGA, PT + LGA, PT + AGA, and PT + SGA, with T + AGA (reference). A 10-type definition included low birthweight (LBW) and non-LBW, and a four-type definition collapsed AGA/LGA into one category. We performed imputation for missing birthweights in 13 of the studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median and interquartile ranges by study for the prevalence, mortality rates and relative mortality risks for the four, six and ten type classification. RESULTS: There were 238 143 live births with known neonatal status. Four of the six types had higher mortality risk: T + SGA (median relative risk [RR] 2.8, interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-3.2), PT + LGA (median RR 7.3, IQR 2.3-10.4), PT + AGA (median RR 6.0, IQR 4.4-13.2) and PT + SGA (median RR 10.4, IQR 8.6-13.9). T + SGA, PT + LGA and PT + AGA babies who were LBW, had higher risk compared with non-LBW babies. CONCLUSIONS: Small and/or preterm babies in LIMCs have a considerably increased mortality risk compared with babies born at term and larger. This classification system may advance the understanding of the social determinants and biomedical risk factors along with improved treatment that is critical for newborn health

Protocol for validation of the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) for children under 3 years of age in seven countries

Introduction Children's early development is affected by caregiving experiences, with lifelong health and well-being implications. Governments and civil societies need population-based measures to monitor children's early development and ensure that children receive the care needed to thrive. To this end, the WHO developed the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) to measure children's early development up to 3 years of age. The GSED includes three measures for population and programmatic level measurement: (1) short form (SF) (caregiver report), (2) long form (LF) (direct administration) and (3) psychosocial form (PF) (caregiver report). The primary aim of this protocol is to validate the GSED SF and LF. Secondary aims are to create preliminary reference scores for the GSED SF and LF, validate an adaptive testing algorithm and assess the feasibility and preliminary validity of the GSED PF. Methods and analysis We will conduct the validation in seven countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Pakistan, The Netherlands, People's Republic of China, United Republic of Tanzania), varying in geography, language, culture and income through a 1-year prospective design, combining cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with 1248 children per site, stratified by age and sex. The GSED generates an innovative common metric (Developmental Score: D-score) using the Rasch model and a Development for Age Z-score (DAZ). We will evaluate six psychometric properties of the GSED SF and LF: concurrent validity, predictive validity at 6 months, convergent and discriminant validity, and test-retest and inter-rater reliability. We will evaluate measurement invariance by comparing differential item functioning and differential test functioning across sites. Ethics and dissemination This study has received ethical approval from the WHO (protocol GSED validation 004583 20.04.2020) and approval in each site. Study results will be disseminated through webinars and publications from WHO, international organisations, academic journals and conference proceedings. Registration details Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ on 19 November 2021 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KX5T7; identifier: osf-registrations-kx5t7-v1)

Protocol for validation of the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) for children under 3 years of age in seven countries.

IntroductionChildren's early development is affected by caregiving experiences, with lifelong health and well-being implications. Governments and civil societies need population-based measures to monitor children's early development and ensure that children receive the care needed to thrive. To this end, the WHO developed the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) to measure children's early development up to 3 years of age. The GSED includes three measures for population and programmatic level measurement: (1) short form (SF) (caregiver report), (2) long form (LF) (direct administration) and (3) psychosocial form (PF) (caregiver report). The primary aim of this protocol is to validate the GSED SF and LF. Secondary aims are to create preliminary reference scores for the GSED SF and LF, validate an adaptive testing algorithm and assess the feasibility and preliminary validity of the GSED PF.Methods and analysisWe will conduct the validation in seven countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Pakistan, The Netherlands, People's Republic of China, United Republic of Tanzania), varying in geography, language, culture and income through a 1-year prospective design, combining cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with 1248 children per site, stratified by age and sex. The GSED generates an innovative common metric (Developmental Score: D-score) using the Rasch model and a Development for Age Z-score (DAZ). We will evaluate six psychometric properties of the GSED SF and LF: concurrent validity, predictive validity at 6 months, convergent and discriminant validity, and test-retest and inter-rater reliability. We will evaluate measurement invariance by comparing differential item functioning and differential test functioning across sites.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethical approval from the WHO (protocol GSED validation 004583 20.04.2020) and approval in each site. Study results will be disseminated through webinars and publications from WHO, international organisations, academic journals and conference proceedings.Registration detailsOpen Science Framework https://osf.io/ on 19 November 2021 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KX5T7; identifier: osf-registrations-kx5t7-v1)

Neonatal mortality risk of vulnerable newborns : a descriptive analysis of subnational, population‐based birth cohorts for 238 143 live births in low‐ and middle‐income settings from 2000 to 2017

Objective: We aimed to understand the mortality risks of vulnerable newborns (defined as preterm and/or born weighing smaller or larger compared to a standard population), in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Design: Descriptive multi-country, secondary analysis of individual-level study data of babies born since 2000. Setting: Sixteen subnational, population-based studies from nine LMICs in sub-Saharan Africa, Southern and Eastern Asia, and Latin America. Population: Live birth neonates. Methods: We categorically defined five vulnerable newborn types based on size (large-or appropriate-or small-for-gestational age [LGA, AGA, SGA]), and term (T) and preterm (PT): T + LGA, T + SGA, PT + LGA, PT + AGA, and PT + SGA, with T + AGA (reference). A 10-type definition included low birthweight (LBW) and non-LBW, and a four-type definition collapsed AGA/LGA into one category. We performed imputation for missing birthweights in 13 of the studies. Main Outcome Measures: Median and interquartile ranges by study for the prevalence, mortality rates and relative mortality risks for the four, six and ten type classification. Results: There were 238 143 live births with known neonatal status. Four of the six types had higher mortality risk: T + SGA (median relative risk [RR] 2.8, interquartile range [IQR] 2.0–3.2), PT + LGA (median RR 7.3, IQR 2.3–10.4), PT + AGA (median RR 6.0, IQR 4.4–13.2) and PT + SGA (median RR 10.4, IQR 8.6–13.9). T + SGA, PT + LGA and PT + AGA babies who were LBW, had higher risk compared with non-LBW babies. Conclusions: Small and/or preterm babies in LIMCs have a considerably increased mortality risk compared with babies born at term and larger. This classification system may advance the understanding of the social determinants and biomedical risk factors along with improved treatment that is critical for newborn health