Gradual emergence followed by exponential spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Africa.

The geographic and evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1), which was first detected mid-November 2021 in Southern Africa, remain unknown. We tested 13,097 COVID-19 patients sampled between mid-2021 to early 2022 from 22 African countries for BA.1 by real-time RT-PCR. By November-December 2021, BA.1 had replaced the Delta variant in all African sub-regions following a South-North gradient, with a peak Rt of 4.1. Polymerase chain reaction and near-full genome sequencing data revealed genetically diverse Omicron ancestors already existed across Africa by August 2021. Mutations, altering viral tropism, replication and immune escape, gradually accumulated in the spike gene. Omicron ancestors were therefore present in several African countries months before Omicron dominated transmission. These data also indicate that travel bans are ineffective in the face of undetected and widespread infection.

Awareness and preparedness of healthcare workers against the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey across 57 countries.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave. METHODS: This multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training. RESULTS: We surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0-14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6-32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (p<0.001). Association rule mining suggests that nurses and doctors who had a 'great-extent-of-confidence' in handling suspected COVID-19 patients had participated in COVID-19 training courses. Male participants (mean difference = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.46; p<0.001) and nurses (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.81; p<0.001) had higher preparedness scores compared to women participants and doctors. INTERPRETATION: There was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.

Study Protocol for a Global Survey: Awareness and Preparedness of Hospital Staff Against Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak.

Background: The outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by a novel coronavirus (named SARS-CoV-2) has gained attention globally and has been recognized as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) due to the rapidly increasing number of deaths and confirmed cases. Health care workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to this crisis as they are the first frontline to receive and manage COVID-19 patients. In this multicenter multinational survey, we aim to assess the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital staff regarding COVID-19 all over the world. Methods: From February to March 2020, the web-based or paper-based survey to gather information about the hospital staff's awareness and preparedness in the participants' countries will be carried out using a structured questionnaire based on the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) checklist and delivered to participants by the local collaborators for each hospital. As of March 2020, we recruited 374 hospitals from 58 countries that could adhere to this protocol as approved by their Institutional Review Boards (IRB) or Ethics Committees (EC). Discussion: The awareness and preparedness of HCWs against COVID-19 are of utmost importance not only to protect themselves from infection, but also to control the virus transmission in healthcare facilities and to manage the disease, especially in the context of manpower lacking and hospital overload during the pandemic. The results of this survey can be used to inform hospitals about the awareness and preparedness of their health staff regarding COVID-19, so appropriate policies and practice guidelines can be implemented to improve their capabilities of facing this crisis and other future pandemic-prone diseases.

Factors that influence vaccination decision-making among pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The most important factor influencing maternal vaccination uptake is healthcare professional (HCP) recommendation. However, where data are available, one-third of pregnant women remain unvaccinated despite receiving a recommendation. Therefore, it is essential to understand the significance of other factors and distinguish between vaccines administered routinely and during outbreaks. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD 42019118299) to examine the strength of the relationships between identified factors and maternal vaccination uptake. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase Classic & Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, IBSS, LILACS, AfricaWideInfo, IMEMR, and Global Health databases for studies reporting factors that influence maternal vaccination. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of being vaccinated by vaccine type. FINDINGS: We screened 17,236 articles and identified 120 studies from 30 countries for inclusion. Of these, 49 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The odds of receiving a pertussis or influenza vaccination were ten to twelve-times higher among pregnant women who received a recommendation from HCPs. During the 2009 influenza pandemic an HCP recommendation increased the odds of antenatal H1N1 vaccine uptake six times (OR 6.76, 95% CI 3.12-14.64, I2 = 92.00%). Believing there was potential for vaccine-induced harm had a negative influence on seasonal (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.44 I2 = 84.00%) and pandemic influenza vaccine uptake (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, I2 = 89.48%), reducing the odds of being vaccinated five-fold. Combined with our qualitative analysis the relationship between the belief in substantial disease risk and maternal seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination uptake was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of an HCP recommendation during an outbreak, whilst still powerful, may be muted by other factors. This requires further research, particularly when vaccines are novel. Public health campaigns which centre on the protectiveness and safety of a maternal vaccine rather than disease threat alone may prove beneficial.