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

Background: Emergency 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). Methods: To 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. Results: We 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. Conclusion: We 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.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.

Facing the Omicron variant—how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0–62% after full primary immunization and between 34–66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34–54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3–6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.

A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study.

BACKGROUND: During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people's perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. RESULTS: This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people's assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). CONCLUSION: We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.