Agnes Nanyonjo

Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top 10 threats to global health. The causes of low vaccine uptake are many and vary at micro and macro levels. However, rural and remote coastal areas in the UK experience unique vaccine inequalities due to high levels of deprivation and their unique and complex access-related problems. This study aimed to explore community efforts to promote vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic and understand how the COVID-19 vaccination campaign was experienced by the public. We conducted an exploratory descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with decision-makers, health professionals and community members in Lincolnshire, a predominantly rural county with a long coastline, a large population of white minority ethnicities, and those living in caravan and temporary housing. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Overcoming the various access barriers to vaccination uptake involved working with local media stations, local communities and local community groups, translation of information, bringing vaccines closer to the people through pop-up and mobile clinics and provision of transport and ensuring confidentiality. There is a need to employ inclusive targeted non-conventional care interventions whilst dealing with complex problems as occur in rural and remote coastal regions.

Background: The success of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out depended on clear policy communication and guidance to promote and facilitate vaccine uptake. The rapidly evolving pandemic circumstances led to many vaccine policy amendments. The impact of changing policy on effective vaccine communication and its influence in terms of societal response to vaccine promotion are underexplored; this qualitative research addresses that gap within the extant literature. Methods: Policy communicators and community leaders from urban and rural Ontario participated in semi-structured interviews (N = 29) to explore their experiences of COVID-19 vaccine policy communication. Thematic analysis was used to produce representative themes. Results: Analysis showed rapidly changing policy was a barrier to smooth communication and COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Continual amendments had unintended consequences, stimulating confusion, disrupting community outreach efforts and interrupting vaccine implementation. Policy changes were most disruptive to logistical planning and community engagement work, including community outreach, communicating eligibility criteria, and providing translated vaccine information to diverse communities. Conclusions: Vaccine policy changes that allow for prioritized access can have the unintended consequence of limiting communities’ access to information that supports decision making. Rapidly evolving circumstances require a balance between adjusting policy and maintaining simple, consistent public health messages that can readily be translated into action. Information access is a factor in health inequality that needs addressing alongside access to vaccines.

(1) Background: Canada had a unique approach to COVID-19 vaccine policy making. The objective of this study was to understand the evolution of COVID-19 vaccination policies in Ontario, Canada, using the policy triangle framework. (2) Methods: We searched government websites and social media to identify COVID-19 vaccination policies in Ontario, Canada, which were posted between 1 October 2020, and 1 December 2021. We used the policy triangle framework to explore the policy actors, content, processes, and context. (3) Results: We reviewed 117 Canadian COVID-19 vaccine policy documents. Our review found that federal actors provided guidance, provincial actors made actionable policy, and community actors adapted policy to local contexts. The policy processes aimed to approve and distribute vaccines while continuously updating policies. The policy content focused on group prioritization and vaccine scarcity issues such as the delayed second dose and the mixed vaccine schedules. Finally, the policies were made in the context of changing vaccine science, global and national vaccine scarcity, and a growing awareness of the inequitable impacts of pandemics on specific communities. (4) Conclusions: We found that the triad of vaccine scarcity, evolving efficacy and safety data, and social inequities all contributed to the creation of vaccine policies that were difficult to efficiently communicate to the public. A lesson learned is that the need for dynamic policies must be balanced with the complexity of effective communication and on-the-ground delivery of care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable disruption to cancer care and may have exacerbated existing challenges already faced by cancer survivors from rural areas. This has created a need for a rapid evidence synthesis to inform the development of tailored interventions that address the specific needs of rural cancer survivors who continue to be affected by the pandemic. The review was conducted following guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group. Database searches were performed via the EBSCOHost interface (includes MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) on 25 May 2022 and supplemented with searches on Google Scholar. Peer-reviewed articles published after March 2020 that reported primary data on the experiences of cancer survivors residing in rural and remote settings during the pandemic were included. Findings were tabulated and written up narratively. Fourteen studies were included. The COVID-19 pandemic had a mostly detrimental impact on the experiences of rural cancer survivors. People’s individual coping mechanisms were challenging for a range of reasons. Specifically, the pandemic impacted on their ability to access testing, treatment, check-ups and supportive care, their ability to maintain and access social support with close friends and family, as well as negative consequences to their finances and emotional wellbeing with some reporting feelings of psychological distress including depression and anxiety. This review provides important insight into the experiences of rural cancer survivors that may help inform tailored support in line with the needs and challenges faced because of the pandemic.

Introduction: Several countries have adopted integrated community case management (iCCM) as a strategy for improved health service delivery in areas with poor health facility coverage. Early implementation of iCCM is often run by nongovernmental organizations financed by donors through projects. Such projects risk failure to transition into programs run by the local health system upon project closure. Engagement of subnational health authorities such as district health teams (DHTs) is essential for a smooth transition. Methods: We used a repeated qualitative study design to assess the readiness of and progress made by DHTs in institutionalizing iCCM into the functions of locally decentralized health systems in 9 western Uganda districts. Readiness data were derived from structured group interviews with DHTs before iCCM policy adoption in 2010 and again in 2015. Progressive institutionalization achievements were assessed through key informant interviews with targeted DHT members and local government district planners in the same areas. Findings: In the readiness study, DHTs expressed commitment to institutionalize iCCM into the local health system through the development of district-specific iCCM activity work plans and budgets. The DHTs further suggested that they would implement district-led training, motivation, and supervision of community health workers; procurement of iCCM medicines and supplies; and advocacy activities for inclusion of iCCM indicators into the national health information systems. After iCCM policy adoption, follow-up study data findings showed that iCCM was largely not institutionalized into the local district health system functions. The poor institutionalization was attributed to lack of stewardship on how to transition from externally supported implementation to district-led programming, conflicting guidelines on community distribution of medicines, poor community-level accountability systems, and limited decision-making autonomy at the district level. Conclusion: Successful institutionalization of iCCM requires local ownership with increased coordination and cooperation among governmental and nongovernmental actors at both the national and district levels. Key Findings Despite district health teams reporting readiness and preparation to incorporate integrated community case management (iCCM) into their district health systems, they were unable to institutionalize most components into district-specific work plans. Barriers to institutionalization included the lack of stewardship from both Ministry of Health and implementing partners on how to transition from a partner-supported to a locally-run program, lack of agreement of national guidelines on community-level drug distribution, lack of integration of some iCCM indicators in the national health management information system, and limited central government funding. Key Implications District health teams and other local government administrative structures should work together to increase community acceptance, engagement, and ownership of interventions. National and local health systems and implementing partners should collaborate to complement community engagement and encourage local ownership and effective institutionalization. Central government authorities should increase capacity building of district health teams by providing training, delegating power, and providing tools and technologies for implementing iCCM. Implementing partners should collaborate with the Ministry of Health and other relevant policy makers to put into place an effective phaseout and eventual exit plan that will ensure program sustainability.

International and national development agendas acknowledge the need for equitable sanitation services. The presence of comprehensive policy documents is crucial for guiding implementation in line with set goals. Beyond mapping the scope of existing policy documents, this landscape analysis examined existing policies for comprehensiveness, coordination and equity. Policies were characterised for content, processes and actors in relation to faecal waste management (FWM) along the entire value chain (capture, containment, emptying, transportation, treatment and safe disposal) in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. We found that FWM was sub-optimally represented in the broader environmental, water and sanitation policies scattered in multiple policy and legal frameworks. Other than Kenya, no country had a ratified stand-alone sanitation and hygiene policy or a ‘home-ministry’ for sanitation. Several aspects of the FWM chain were not exclusively addressed by the policies. Although the responsibility for FWM was shared between the private sector and several relevant government institutions (ministries of health, education, local government and environment), the burden of FWM disproportionately lay on individual households with minimal subsidies for the urban-poor. Comprehensive policy frameworks addressing FWM along the entire value chain are needed to foster the implementation of equitable sanitation services in cities.

Background: Integrated community case management (iCCM) for malaria, pneumonia and diarrhea continues to be a recommended strategy to address child mortality in areas where access to health facilities is limited. Objective: To identify models of, and gaps in, institutionalization of benchmark components of iCCM into national health systems of low-and-middle-income countries, in order to draw lessons for future iCCM implementation and sustainability. Methods: A scoping review of relevant searchable policy documents and publications available in English literature was undertaken. Data were selected, collated and characterized by three reviewers using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Results: Overall 19 countries were reviewed. Despite the existence of discrete policies, most iCCM programs relied heavily on implementing partners and donor financing. Parallel implementing partner-run systems were often used to procure and supply iCCM medicines. These modes of implementation occasionally violated some health system strengthening principles. Drug stock-outs were still prominent in several countries, and iCCM indicators were sometimes not integrated into the national health management information system. There were no clearly defined motivation packages for both salaried and unsalaried workers, and there were several supervision challenges. Community-based performance-financing, use of technology with mobile devices (mHealth), small procedural improvements, and provision of targeted rather than universal services, were some of the promising interventions for improved iCCM institutionalization. Conclusion: Sustainable iCCM will require improved ownership by the benefiting communities and the local and central governments. Government commitment should be evident in budgeting processes and implementation strategies.

A key barrier to appropriate treatment for malaria, diarrhoea, and pneumonia (MDP) in children under 5 years of age in low income rural settings is the lack of access to quality health care. The WHO and UNICEF have therefore called for the scale-up of integrated community case management (iCCM) using community health workers (CHWs). The current study assessed access to treatment, out-of-pocket expenditure and the quality of treatment provided in the public and private sectors compared to national guidelines, using data collected in a large representative survey of caregivers of children in 205 villages with iCCM-trained CHWs in mid-Western Uganda. The prevalence of suspected malaria, diarrhoea and suspected pneumonia in the preceding two weeks in 6501 children in the study sample were 45%, 11% and 24% respectively. Twenty percent of children were first taken to a CHW, 56% to a health facility, 14% to other providers and no care was sought for 11%. The CHW was more likely to provide appropriate treatment compared to any other provider or to those not seeking care for children with MDP (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.42–1.61, p<0.001). Seeking care from a CHW had the lowest cost outlay (median $0.00, IQR $0.00-$1.80), whilst seeking care to a private doctor or clinic the highest (median $2.80, IQR $1.20-$6.00). We modelled the expected increase in overall treatment coverage if children currently treated in the private sector or not seeking care were taken to the CHW instead. In this scenario, coverage of appropriate treatment for MDP could increase in total from the current rate of 47% up to 64%. Scale-up of iCCM-trained CHW programmes is key to the provision of affordable, high quality treatment for sick children, and can thus significantly contribute to closing the gap in coverage of appropriate treatment.

Pneumonia and diarrhoea disproportionately affect children in resource-poor settings. Integrated community case management (iCCM) involves community health workers treating diarrhoea, pneumonia and malaria. Studies on impact of iCCM on appropriate treatment and its effects on equity in access to the same are limited. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of integrated community case management (iCCM) as the first point of care on uptake of appropriate treatment for children with a classification of pneumonia (cough and fast breathing) and/or diarrhoea and to measure the magnitude and distribution of socioeconomic status related inequality in use of iCCM. Following introduction of iCCM, data from cross-sectional household surveys were examined for socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of treatment and use of iCCM among children with a classification of pneumonia or diarrhoea using the Erreygers’ corrected concentration index (CCI). Propensity score matching methods were used to estimate the average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) for children treated under the iCCM programme with recommended antibiotics for pneumonia, and ORS plus or minus zinc for diarrhoea. Overall, more children treated under iCCM received appropriate antibiotics for pneumonia (ATT = 34.7 %, p < 0.001) and ORS for diarrhoea (ATT = 41.2 %, p < 0.001) compared to children not attending iCCM. No such increase was observed for children receiving ORS-zinc combination (ATT = -0.145, p < 0.05). There were no obvious inequalities in the uptake of appropriate treatment for pneumonia among the poorest and least poor (CCI = -0.070; SE = 0.083). Receiving ORS for diarrhoea was more prevalent among the least poor groups (CCI = 0.199; SE = 0.118). The use of iCCM for pneumonia was more prevalent among the poorest groups (CCI = -0.099; SE = 0.073). The use of iCCM for diarrhoea was not significantly different among the poorest and least poor (CCI = -0.073; SE = 0.085). iCCM is a potentially equitable strategy that significantly increased the uptake of appropriate antibiotic treatment for pneumonia and ORS for diarrhoea, but not the uptake of zinc for diarrhoea. For maximum impact, interventions increasing zinc uptake should be considered when scaling up iCCM programmes.