Unintended consequences of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions for the COVID-19 response in Africa: experiences from DRC, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID 19) pandemic is one of the most terrifying disasters of the twenty-first century. The non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented to control the spread of the disease had numerous positive consequences. However, there were also unintended consequences-positively or negatively related to the nature of the interventions, the target, the level and duration of implementation. This article describes the unintended economic, Psychosocial and environmental consequences of NPIs in four African countries. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda. A comprehensive conceptual framework, supported by a clear theory of change was adopted to encompass both systemic and non-systemic interventions. The data collection approaches included: (i) review of literature; (ii) analysis of secondary data for selected indicators; and (ii) key informant interviews with policy makers, civil society, local leaders, and law enforcement staff. The results were synthesized around thematic areas. RESULTS: Over the first six to nine months of the pandemic, NPIs especially lockdowns, travel restrictions, curfews, school closures, and prohibition of mass gathering resulted into both positive and negative unintended consequences cutting across economic, psychological, and environmental platforms. DRC, Nigeria, and Uganda observed reduced crime rates and road traffic accidents, while Uganda also reported reduced air pollution. In addition, hygiene practices have improved through health promotion measures that have been promoted for the response to the pandemic. All countries experienced economic slowdown, job losses heavily impacting women and poor households, increased sexual and gender-based violence, teenage pregnancies, and early marriages, increased poor mental health conditions, increased waste generation with poor disposal, among others. CONCLUSION: Despite achieving pandemic control, the stringent NPIs had several negative and few positive unintended consequences. Governments need to balance the negative and positive consequences of NPIs by anticipating and instituting measures that will support and protect vulnerable groups especially the poor, the elderly, women, and children. Noticeable efforts, including measures to avoid forced into marriage, increasing inequities, economic support to urban poor; those living with disabilities, migrant workers, and refugees, had been conducted to mitigate the negative effects of the NIPs.

COVID-19 surveillance in Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda: strengths, weaknesses and key Lessons.

INTRODUCTION: As part of efforts to rapidly identify and care for individuals with COVID-19, trace and quarantine contacts, and monitor disease trends over time, most African countries implemented interventions to strengthen their existing disease surveillance systems. This research describes the strengths, weaknesses and lessons learnt from the COVID-19 surveillance strategies implemented in four African countries to inform the enhancement of surveillance systems for future epidemics on the continent. METHODS: The four countries namely the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda, were selected based on their variability in COVID-19 response and representation of Francophone and Anglophone countries. A mixed-methods observational study was conducted including desk review and key informant interviews, to document best practices, gaps, and innovations in surveillance at the national, sub-national, health facilities, and community levels, and these learnings were synthesized across the countries. RESULTS: Surveillance approaches across countries included - case investigation, contact tracing, community-based, laboratory-based sentinel, serological, telephone hotlines, and genomic sequencing surveillance. As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, the health systems moved from aggressive testing and contact tracing to detect virus and triage individual contacts into quarantine and confirmed cases, isolation and clinical care. Surveillance, including case definitions, changed from contact tracing of all contacts of confirmed cases to only symptomatic contacts and travelers. All countries reported inadequate staffing, staff capacity gaps and lack of full integration of data sources. All four countries under study improved data management and surveillance capacity by training health workers and increasing resources for laboratories, but the disease burden was under-detected. Decentralizing surveillance to enable swifter implementation of targeted public health measures at the subnational level was a challenge. There were also gaps in genomic and postmortem surveillance including community level sero-prevalence studies, as well as digital technologies to provide more timely and accurate surveillance data. CONCLUSION: All the four countries demonstrated a prompt public health surveillance response and adopted similar approaches to surveillance with some adaptations as the pandemic progresses. There is need for investments to enhance surveillance approaches and systems including decentralizing surveillance to the subnational and community levels, strengthening capabilities for genomic surveillance and use of digital technologies, among others. Investing in health worker capacity, ensuring data quality and availability and improving ability to transmit surveillance data between and across multiple levels of the health care system is also critical. Countries need to take immediate action in strengthening their surveillance systems to better prepare for the next major disease outbreak and pandemic.

Spread and seasonality of COVID-19 pandemic confirmed cases in sub-Saharan Africa: experience from Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world negatively with huge health and socioeconomic consequences. This study estimated the seasonality, trajectory, and projection of COVID-19 cases to understand the dynamics of the disease spread and inform response interventions. METHOD: Descriptive analysis of daily confirmed COVID-19 cases from January 2020 to 12th March 2022 was conducted in four purposefully selected sub-Saharan African countries (Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Senegal, and Uganda). We extrapolated the COVID-19 data from (2020 to 2022) to 2023 using a trigonometric time series model. A decomposition time series method was used to examine the seasonality in the data. RESULTS: Nigeria had the highest rate of spread (ß) of COVID-19 (ß = 381.2) while DRC had the least rate (ß = 119.4). DRC, Uganda, and Senegal had a similar pattern of COVID-19 spread from the onset through December 2020. The average doubling time in COVID-19 case count was highest in Uganda (148 days) and least in Nigeria (83 days). A seasonal variation was found in the COVID-19 data for all four countries but the timing of the cases showed some variations across countries. More cases are expected in the 1st (January-March) and 3rd (July-September) quarters of the year in Nigeria and Senegal, and in the 2nd (April-June) and 3rd (October-December) quarters in DRC and Uganda. CONCLUSION: Our findings show a seasonality that may warrant consideration for COVID-19 periodic interventions in the peak seasons in the preparedness and response strategies.

Private sector engagement in the COVID-19 response: experiences and lessons from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Private entities play a major role in health globally. However, their contribution has not been fully optimized to strengthen delivery of public health services. The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health systems and precipitated coalitions between public and private sectors to address critical gaps in the response. We conducted a study to document the public and private sector partnerships and engagements to inform current and future responses to public health emergencies. METHODS: This was a multi-country cross-sectional study conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda between November 2020 and March 2021 to assess responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a scoping literature review and key informant interviews (KIIs) with private and public health sector stakeholders. The literature reviewed included COVID-19 country guidelines and response plans, program reports and peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications. KIIs elicited information on country approaches and response strategies specifically the engagement of the private sector in any of the strategic response operations. RESULTS: Across the 4 countries, private sector strengthened laboratory systems, COVID-19 case management, risk communication and health service continuity. In the DRC and Nigeria, private entities supported contact tracing and surveillance activities. Across the 4 countries, the private sector supported expansion of access to COVID-19 testing services through establishing partnerships with the public health sector albeit at unregulated fees. In Senegal and Uganda, governments established partnerships with private sector to manufacture COVID-19 rapid diagnostic tests. The private sector also contributed to treatment and management of COVID-19 cases. In addition, private entities provided personal protective equipment, conducted risk communication to promote adherence to safety procedures and health promotion for health service continuity. However, there were concerns related to reporting, quality and cost of services, calling for quality and price regulation in the provision of services. CONCLUSIONS: The private sector contributed to the COVID-19 response through engagement in COVID-19 surveillance and testing, management of COVID-19 cases, and health promotion to maintain health access. There is a need to develop regulatory frameworks for sustainable public-private engagements including regulation of pricing, quality assurance and alignment with national plans and priorities during response to epidemics.