Risk factors associated with the recent cholera outbreak in Yemen: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES The cholera outbreak in Yemen has become the largest in the recent history of cholera records, having reached more than 1.4 million cases since it started in late 2016. This study aimed to identify risk factors for cholera in this outbreak. METHODS A case-control study was conducted in Aden in 2018 to investigate risk factors for cholera in this still-ongoing outbreak. In total, 59 cholera cases and 118 community controls were studied. RESULTS The following risk factors were associated with being a cholera case in the bivariate analysis: a history of travelling and having had visitors from outside Aden Province; eating outside the house; not washing fruit, vegetables, and khat (a local herbal stimulant) before consumption; using common-source water; and not using chlorine or soap in the household. In the multivariate analysis, not washing khat and the use of common-source water remained significant risk factors for being a cholera case. CONCLUSIONS Behavioural factors and unsafe water appear to be the major risk factors in the recent cholera outbreak in Yemen. In order to reduce the risk of cholera, hygiene practices for washing khat and vegetables and the use and accessibility of safe drinking water should be promoted at the community level

Capacity-building during public health emergencies: perceived usefulness and cost savings of an online training on SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) diagnostics in low- and middle-income settings during the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionUpon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Laboratory Support Unit (ZIG4) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German National Public Health Institute, developed and delivered an online training on SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics to 17 partner countries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This article analyses the usefulness and cost savings of this training.MethodsThe authors performed a concurrent mixed-methodology study based on key informant interviews, interviewer-administered questionnaires, and document reviews. Economic costs were estimated from the perspective of RKI.ResultsResponding participants indicated that the course provided good and comprehensive information on up-to-date scientific knowledge and laboratory practice in PCR diagnostics. Respondents appreciated how the technical content of the training enhanced their ability to apply diagnostic methods in their daily work. Interviewees highlighted that the fast implementation and the low threshold of attending an online training had allowed them to quickly build skills that were crucial during, and beyond, the COVID-19 crisis. The total estimated cost of the online SARS-CoV-2 qPCR training was 61,644 euros. The total estimated cost of the equivalent face-to-face training was estimated at 267,592 euros. Programme weaknesses identified included the top-down approaches taken, lack of interactive components and opportunities to directly engage with other course participants and with teachers.ConclusionsAn online training was developed and implemented to support RKI partner countries in SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby strengthening pandemic response and health system resilience. The training incurred in important cost savings compared to the equivalent face-to-face training. Post-pandemic studies could usefully build on these research findings and explore ways to enhance end user involvement and improve interactive features to build stronger communities of learners and facilitate exchange of information and mutual learning

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review

Objectives: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. Design: Policy mapping and systematic review. Data sources and Eligibility Criteria: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies.Peer Reviewe

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

BackgroundEmergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE).MethodsTo map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results.ResultsWe identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies.ConclusionWe found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks

Ocena Wyników Narodowego Klastra Zdrowia w Jemenie: Badanie Jakościowe

Wprowadzenie: Jemen od 1990 r. stoi przed politycznymi, gospodarczymi i społecznymi wyzwaniami. Niepewna sytuacja w kraju doprowadziła w 2015 r. do powszechnego konfliktu, który poskutkował największym obecnie kryzysem humanitarnym na świecie. Na tle katastrofy humanitarnej i upadającego systemu opieki zdrowotnej, została wdrożona platforma w celu koordynowania działań humanitarnych, zwana Klasterem Zdrowia. Celem niniejszej pracy jest ocena wyników krajowego Klastra Zdrowia w Jemenie w okresie 2015–2018.Metody: W pracy zastosowano jakościowe metody badawcze. Przeprowadzono dziesięć częściowo ustrukturyzowanych wywiadów z kluczowymi interesariuszami Klastra Zdrowia. W badaniu zastosowano wytyczne Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) dotyczące oceny działań humanitarnych przy użyciu kryteriów Komitetu Pomocy Rozwojowej (Development Assistance Committee, DAC). Wybrano sześć kryteriów: trafność, skuteczność, efektywność, efekty, spójność i uczestnictwo. Przeprowadzono transkrypcję zarejestrowanych wywiadów. Dane poddano analizie przy użyciu oprogramowania NVivo 12.Wyniki: Wyniki badania wskazują, że Klaster Zdrowia przyczynił się do ratowania życia, wzmocnienia lokalnych możliwości w zakresie nadzoru nad chorobami i poprawy koordynacji pomocy humanitarnej. Zaangażowanie interesariuszy zdrowotnych, zwłaszcza organizacji krajowych, nie było jednak zadowalające. Brakowało także „strategii wyjścia” oraz nie poświęcono wystarczającej uwagi zdrowiu psychicznemu, chorobom przewlekłym i osobom niepełnosprawnym w strategicznych planach Klastra Zdrowia i odpowiedzi humanitarnej partnerów.Wnioski: Ogólna odpowiedź humanitarna koordynowana przez Klaster Zdrowia była odpowiednia, choć istnieje przestrzeń do poprawy. Rewizja celów klastra, ustanowienie mechanizmu finansowania narzędzi szybkiego reagowania, przygotowanie do odbudowy systemu opieki zdrowotnej i aktywne zaangażowanie wszystkich zainteresowanych stron, poprawiłoby działania Klastra Zdrowia i zmaksymalizowało jego wyniki oraz pozytywny wpływ na system opieki zdrowotnej i populację.Introduction: Yemen has been facing political, economic and social challenges since 1990. The fragility of the situation in the country has led to widespread conflict in 2015, which resulted in the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. Amid the humanitarian catastrophe and the collapsing health system, a platform for coordinating the humanitarian response, called the Health Cluster, was implemented. The study aims to evaluate the performance of the national Health Cluster in Yemen between the period 2015 to 2018.Methods: A qualitative research design was employed. Ten semi-structured interviews with key Health Cluster stakeholders were conducted. The study applied the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) guide to evaluating humanitarian action using the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria. Six criteria were selected: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Effects, Connectedness and Participation. Inputs from interviews were manually transcribed then analysed using NVivo 12 software.Results: The results of the study indicate that the Health Cluster contributed to saving lives, strengthening the local capacities in diseases surveillance and improving humanitarian coordination. Nevertheless, engaging health stakeholders, especially national organisations, was not satisfactory. Exit strategies were lacking, and inadequate focus was given to mental health, chronic diseases and persons with disabilities in the Health Cluster’ strategic plans and partners’ response.Conclusions: The overall response coordinated by the Health Cluster was adequate with a room for improvement. Reviewing Cluster objectives, establishing rapid response funding mechanism, preparation for health system recovery, and active engagement of all stakeholders would ameliorate the Health Cluster performance and maximise its outcomes and positive impact on health system and population

The National Health Cluster in Yemen : assessing the coordination of health response during humanitarian crises

Yemen has been facing political, economic and social challenges since 1990. The fragility of Yemen’s situation has led to a widespread conflict in 2015, resulting in the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Amid the humanitarian catastrophe and the collapsing health system, a platform for coordinating humanitarian health response, called the National Health Cluster, has expanded its operations across the country. The study aims to evaluate the performance of the National Health Cluster in Yemen between 2015 and 2019. A qualitative research design was employed, and ten semi-structured interviews with key Health Cluster stakeholders were conducted. The study applied the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) guide to evaluating humanitarian action using the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria. Six evaluation criteria were selected: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, effects, connectedness and participation. Inputs from interviews were manually transcribed and then analysed using NVivo 12 software. The study results indicate that the Health Cluster in Yemen has contributed to saving lives and strengthening the local health capacities in diseases surveillance. In addition, its positive effect was evident in improving the humanitarian health response coordination. Nevertheless, engaging health stakeholders, especially national organisations, was suboptimal. Exit strategies were lacking, while services to address mental health, non-communicable diseases, senior citizens and people with disabilities were not prioritised in the Health Cluster strategic plans and partners’ response. To ameliorate Health Cluster performance, revising its objectives and establishing a cluster-specific rapid response funding mechanism are pivotal. Furthermore, preparing the national health system for recovery and actively engaging all stakeholders in the Health Cluster’ response and strategic decisions would maximise its positive impact on Yemen’s health system and population

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation

The COVID-19 pandemic: diverse contexts; different epidemics—how and why?

It is very exceptional that a new disease becomes a true pandemic. Since its emergence in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, has spread to nearly all countries of the world in only a few months. However, in different countries, the COVID-19 epidemic takes variable shapes and forms in how it affects communities. Until now, the insights gained on COVID-19 have been largely dominated by the COVID-19 epidemics and the lockdowns in China, Europe and the USA. But this variety of global trajectories is little described, analysed or understood. In only a few months, an enormous amount of scientific evidence on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has been uncovered (knowns). But important knowledge gaps remain (unknowns). Learning from the variety of ways the COVID-19 epidemic is unfolding across the globe can potentially contribute to solving the COVID-19 puzzle. This paper tries to make sense of this variability—by exploring the important role that context plays in these different COVID-19 epidemics; by comparing COVID-19 epidemics with other respiratory diseases, including other coronaviruses that circulate continuously; and by highlighting the critical unknowns and uncertainties that remain. These unknowns and uncertainties require a deeper understanding of the variable trajectories of COVID-19. Unravelling them will be important for discerning potential future scenarios, such as the first wave in virgin territories still untouched by COVID-19 and for future waves elsewhere

The COVID-19 pandemic: diverse contexts; different epidemics—how and why?

It is very exceptional that a new disease becomes a true pandemic. Since its emergence in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, has spread to nearly all countries of the world in only a few months. However, in different countries, the COVID-19 epidemic takes variable shapes and forms in how it affects communities. Until now, the insights gained on COVID-19 have been largely dominated by the COVID-19 epidemics and the lockdowns in China, Europe and the USA. But this variety of global trajectories is little described, analysed or understood. In only a few months, an enormous amount of scientific evidence on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has been uncovered (knowns). But important knowledge gaps remain (unknowns). Learning from the variety of ways the COVID-19 epidemic is unfolding across the globe can potentially contribute to solving the COVID-19 puzzle. This paper tries to make sense of this variability—by exploring the important role that context plays in these different COVID-19 epidemics; by comparing COVID-19 epidemics with other respiratory diseases, including other coronaviruses that circulate continuously; and by highlighting the critical unknowns and uncertainties that remain. These unknowns and uncertainties require a deeper understanding of the variable trajectories of COVID-19. Unravelling them will be important for discerning potential future scenarios, such as the first wave in virgin territories still untouched by COVID-19 and for future waves elsewhere