Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors among adults in Uganda: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 pandemic remains one of the most significant public health challenges ever faced globally. Vaccines are key to ending the pandemic as well as minimise its consequences. This study determined the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors among adults in Uganda. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional mobile phone survey among adults in Uganda. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: Participants reported their uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Of the participants contacted, 94% (1173) completed the survey. Overall, 49.7% had received COVID-19 vaccines with 19.2% having obtained a full dose and 30.5% an incomplete dose. Among the unvaccinated, 91.0% indicated intention to vaccinate. Major reasons for vaccine uptake were protection of self from COVID-19 (86.8%) and a high perceived risk of getting the virus (19.6%). On the other hand, non-uptake was related to vaccine unavailability (42.4%), lack of time (24.1%) and perceived safety (12.5%) and effectiveness concerns (6.9%). The factors associated with receiving COVID-19 vaccines were older age (≥65 years) (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR)=1.32 (95% CI: 1.08 to 1.61)), secondary (APR=1.36 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.65)) or tertiary education (APR=1.62 (95% CI: 1.31 to 2.00)) and health workers as a source of information on COVID-19 (APR=1.26 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.45)). Also, reporting a medium-income (APR=1.24 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.52)) and residence in Northern (APR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.02) and Central regions (APR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.89) were associated with vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was moderate in this sample and was associated with older age, secondary and tertiary education, medium-income, region of residence and health workers as a source of COVID-19 information. Efforts are needed to increase access to vaccines and should use health workers as champions to enhance uptake.

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.

Improving the effectiveness of Field Epidemiology Training Programs: characteristics that facilitated effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The global need for well-trained field epidemiologists has been underscored in the last decade in multiple pandemics, the most recent being COVID-19. Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) are in-service training programs that improve country capacities to respond to public health emergencies across different levels of the health system. Best practices for FETP implementation have been described previously. The Uganda Public Health Fellowship Program (PHFP), or Advanced-FETP in Uganda, is a two-year fellowship in field epidemiology funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and situated in the Uganda National Institute of Public Health (UNIPH). We describe how specific attributes of the Uganda PHFP that are aligned with best practices enabled substantial contributions to the COVID-19 response in Uganda. METHODS: We describe the PHFP in Uganda and review examples of how specific program characteristics facilitate integration with Ministry of Health needs and foster a strong response, using COVID-19 pandemic response activities as examples. We describe PHFP activities and outputs before and during the COVID-19 response and offer expert opinions about the impact of the program set-up on these outputs. RESULTS: Unlike nearly all other Advanced FETPs in Africa, PHFP is delinked from an academic degree-granting program and enrolls only post-Master's-degree fellows. This enables full-time, uninterrupted commitment of academically-trained fellows to public health response. Uganda's PHFP has strong partner support in country, sufficient technical support from program staff, Ministry of Health (MoH), CDC, and partners, and full-time dedicated directorship from a well-respected MoH staff member. The PHFP is physically co-located inside the UNIPH with the emergency operations center (EOC), which provides a direct path for health alerts to be investigated by fellows. It has recognized value within the MoH, which integrates graduates into key MoH and partner positions. During February 2020-September 2021, PHFP fellows and graduates completed 67 major COVID-related projects. PHFP activities during the COVID-19 response were specifically requested by the MoH or by partners, or generated de novo by the program, and were supervised by all partners. CONCLUSION: Specific attributes of the PHFP enable effective service to the Ministry of Health in Uganda. Among the most important is the enrollment of post-graduate fellows, which leads to a high level of utilization of the program fellows by the Ministry of Health to fulfill real-time needs. Strong leadership and sufficient technical support permitted meaningful program outputs during COVID-19 pandemic response. Ensuring the inclusion of similar characteristics when implementing FETPs elsewhere may allow them to achieve a high level of impact.

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.

Risk perception and psychological state of healthcare workers in referral hospitals during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Safeguarding the psychological well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial to ensuring sustainability and quality of healthcare services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs may be subject to excessive mental stress. We assessed the risk perception and immediate psychological state of HCWs early in the pandemic in referral hospitals involved in the management of COVID-19 patients in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in five referral hospitals from April 20-May 22, 2020. During this time, we distributed paper-based, self-administered questionnaires to all consenting HCWs on day shifts. The questionnaire included questions on socio-demographics, occupational behaviors, potential perceived risks, and psychological distress. We assessed risk perception towards COVID-19 using 27 concern statements with a four-point Likert scale. We defined psychological distress as a total score > 12 from the 12-item Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We used modified Poisson regression to identify factors associated with psychological distress. RESULTS: Among 335 HCWs who received questionnaires, 328 (98%) responded. Respondents' mean age was 36 (range 18-59) years; 172 (52%) were male. The median duration of professional experience was eight (range 1-35) years; 208 (63%) worked more than 40 h per week; 116 (35%) were nurses, 52 (14%) doctors, 30 (9%) clinical officers, and 86 (26%) support staff. One hundred and forty-four (44%) had a GHQ-12 score > 12. The most common concerns reported included fear of infection at the workplace (81%), stigma from colleagues (79%), lack of workplace support (63%), and inadequate availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) (56%). In multivariable analysis, moderate (adjusted prevalence ratio, [aPR] = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-4.0) and high (aPR = 3.8, 95% CI 2.0-7.0) risk perception towards COVID-19 (compared with low-risk perception) were associated with psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-four percent of HCWs surveyed in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients during the early COVID-19 epidemic in Uganda reported psychological distress related to fear of infection, stigma, and inadequate PPE. Higher perceived personal risk towards COVID-19 was associated with increased psychological distress. To optimize patient care during the pandemic and future outbreaks, workplace management may consider identifying and addressing HCW concerns, ensuring sufficient PPE and training, and reducing infection-associated stigma.

Early cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda: epidemiology and lessons learned from risk-based testing approaches - March-April 2020.

BACKGROUND: On March 13, 2020, Uganda instituted COVID-19 symptom screening at its international airport, isolation and SARS-CoV-2 testing for symptomatic persons, and mandatory 14-day quarantine and testing of persons traveling through or from high-risk countries. On March 21, 2020, Uganda reported its first SARS-CoV-2 infection in a symptomatic traveler from Dubai. By April 12, 2020, 54 cases and 1257 contacts were identified. We describe the epidemiological, clinical, and transmission characteristics of these cases. METHODS: A confirmed case was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during March 21-April 12, 2020 in a resident of or traveler to Uganda. We reviewed case-person files and interviewed case-persons at isolation centers. We identified infected contacts from contact tracing records. RESULTS: Mean case-person age was 35 (±16) years; 34 (63%) were male. Forty-five (83%) had recently traveled internationally ('imported cases'), five (9.3%) were known contacts of travelers, and four (7.4%) were community cases. Of the 45 imported cases, only one (2.2%) was symptomatic at entry. Among all case-persons, 29 (54%) were symptomatic at testing and five (9.3%) were pre-symptomatic. Among the 34 (63%) case-persons who were ever symptomatic, all had mild disease: 16 (47%) had fever, 13 (38%) reported headache, and 10 (29%) reported cough. Fifteen (28%) case-persons had underlying conditions, including three persons with HIV. An average of 31 contacts (range, 4-130) were identified per case-person. Five (10%) case-persons, all symptomatic, infected one contact each. CONCLUSION: The first 54 case-persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda primarily comprised incoming air travelers with asymptomatic or mild disease. Disease would likely not have been detected in these persons without the targeted testing interventions implemented in Uganda. Transmission was low among symptomatic persons and nonexistent from asymptomatic persons. Routine, systematic screening of travelers and at-risk persons, and thorough contact tracing will be needed for Uganda to maintain epidemic control.

Investigation of a Cluster of Severe Respiratory Disease Referred from Uganda to Kenya, February 2017.

On February 22, 2017, Hospital X-Kampala and US CDC-Kenya reported to the Uganda Ministry of Health a respiratory illness in a 46-year-old expatriate of Company A. The patient, Mr. A, was evacuated from Uganda to Kenya and died. He had recently been exposed to dromedary camels (MERS-CoV) and wild birds with influenza A (H5N6). We investigated the cause of illness, transmission, and recommended control. We defined a suspected case of severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) as acute onset of fever (≥38°C) with sore throat or cough and at least one of the following: headache, lethargy, or difficulty in breathing. In addition, we looked at cases with onset between February 1 and March 31 in a person with a history of contact with Mr. A, his family, or other Company A employees. A confirmed case was defined as a suspected case with laboratory confirmation of the same pathogen detected in Mr. A. Influenza-like illness was defined as onset of fever (≥38°C) and cough or sore throat in a Uganda contact, and as fever (≥38°C) and cough lasting less than 10 days in a Kenya contact. We collected Mr. A's exposure and clinical history, searched for cases, and traced contacts. Specimens from the index case were tested for complete blood count, liver function tests, plasma chemistry, Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and MERS-CoV. Robust field epidemiology, laboratory capacity, and cross-border communication enabled investigation.