ABSTRACT
Many countries across the world instituted lockdowns as a measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, these lockdowns had consequences on health systems. This study explored effects of the COVID-19 lockdown measures on health and healthcare services in Uganda. The qualitative study employed focus group discussions (FGDs), household interviews, and key informant interviews (KIIs) in both an urban (Kampala district) and rural (Wakiso district) setting in central Uganda. Fourteen FGDs were conducted among community members, local leaders, community health workers, and health practitioners. Interviews were conducted among 40 households, while 31 KIIs were held among various stakeholders including policy makers, non-governmental organisations, and the private sector. Data was analysed by thematic analysis with the support of NVivo 2020 (QSR International). Findings from the study are presented under four themes: maternal and reproductive health;child health;chronic disease services;and mental health. Maternal and reproductive health services were negatively affected by the lockdown measures which resulted in reduced utilisation of antenatal, postnatal and family planning services. These effects were mainly due to travel restrictions including curfew, and fear of contracting COVID-19. The effects on child health included reduced utilisation of services which was a result of difficulties faced in accessing health facilities because of the travel restrictions. Patients with chronic conditions could not access health facilities for their routine visits particularly due to suspension of public transport. Depression, stress and anxiety were common due to social isolation from relatives and friends, loss of jobs, and fear of law enforcement personnel. There was also increased anxiety among health workers due to fear of contracting COVID-19. The COVID-19 lockdown measures negatively affected health, and reduced access to maternal, reproductive and child health services. Future interventions in pandemic response should ensure that their effects on health and access to health services are minimised.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this research was to synthetise the existing evidence on the impact of epidemic-related lockdown measures on women and children's health in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods evidence. Between 1st and 10th of November 2021, seven scientific databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were that the paper provided evidence on the impact of lockdown and related measures, focused on LLMICs, addressed impacts on women and child's health, addressed epidemics from 2000-2020, was peer-reviewed, provided original evidence, and was published in English. The Joanne Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of the studies, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting. The evidence from the papers was grouped by type of lockdown measure and categories of impact, using a narrative data-based convergent synthesis design. RESULTS: The review process identified 46 papers meeting the inclusion criteria from 17 countries that focussed on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Ebola epidemics. The evidence on the decrease of utilisation of health services showed plummeting immunisation rates and faltering use of maternal and perinatal services, which was linked to a growth of premature deaths. Impacts on the mental health of children and women were convincingly established, with lockdowns associated with surges in depression, anxiety and low life satisfaction. Vulnerability may be compounded by lockdowns, as livelihoods were disrupted, and poverty levels increased. CONCLUSION: Limitations included that searches were conducted in late-2020 as new research was being published, and that some evidence not published in English may have been excluded. Epidemic-related lockdown measures carry consequences for the health of women and children in lower-income settings. Governments will need to weigh the trade-offs of introducing such measures and consider policies to mitigate their impacts on the most vulnerable.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite growing interest, there is no guidance or consensus on how to conduct clinical trials and observational studies in populations at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force formulated four research questions to be addressed by systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR results informed consensus statements. One overarching principle, 10 points to consider (PTC) and a research agenda were proposed. Task force members rated their level of agreement (1-10) for each PTC. RESULTS: Epidemiological and demographic characteristics should be measured in all clinical trials and studies in at-risk individuals. Different at-risk populations, identified according to clinical presentation, were defined: asymptomatic, musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis and early clinical arthritis. Study end-points should include the development of subclinical inflammation on imaging, clinical arthritis, RA and subsequent achievement of arthritis remission. Risk factors should be assessed at baseline and re-evaluated where appropriate; they include genetic markers and autoantibody profiling and additionally clinical symptoms and subclinical inflammation on imaging in those with symptoms and/or clinical arthritis. Trials should address the effect of the intervention on risk factors, as well as progression to clinical arthritis or RA. In patients with early clinical arthritis, pharmacological intervention has the potential to prevent RA development. Participants' knowledge of their RA risk may inform their decision to participate; information should be provided using an individually tailored approach. CONCLUSION: These consensus statements provide data-driven guidance for rheumatologists, health professionals and investigators conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of RA.