Community dialogue meetings among district leaders improved their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines in Western Uganda, May 2021.

BACKGROUND: Widespread COVID-19 vaccine uptake can facilitate epidemic control. A February 2021 study in Uganda suggested that public vaccine uptake would follow uptake among leaders. In May 2021, Baylor Uganda led community dialogue meetings with district leaders from Western Uganda to promote vaccine uptake. We assessed the effect of these meetings on the leaders' COVID-19 risk perception, vaccine concerns, perception of vaccine benefits and access, and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: All departmental district leaders in the 17 districts in Western Uganda, were invited to the meetings, which lasted approximately four hours. Printed reference materials about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines were provided to attendees at the start of the meetings. The same topics were discussed in all meetings. Before and after the meetings, leaders completed self-administered questionnaires with questions on a five-point Likert Scale about risk perception, vaccine concerns, perceived vaccine benefits, vaccine access, and willingness to receive the vaccine. We analyzed the findings using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. RESULTS: Among 268 attendees, 164 (61%) completed the pre- and post-meeting questionnaires, 56 (21%) declined to complete the questionnaires due to time constraints and 48 (18%) were already vaccinated. Among the 164, the median COVID-19 risk perception scores changed from 3 (neutral) pre-meeting to 5 (strong agreement with being at high risk) post-meeting (p < 0.001). Vaccine concern scores reduced, with medians changing from 4 (worried about vaccine side effects) pre-meeting to 2 (not worried) post-meeting (p < 0.001). Median scores regarding perceived COVID-19 vaccine benefits changed from 3 (neutral) pre-meeting to 5 (very beneficial) post-meeting (p < 0.001). The median scores for perceived vaccine access increased from 3 (neutral) pre-meeting to 5 (very accessible) post-meeting (p < 0.001). The median scores for willingness to receive the vaccine changed from 3 (neutral) pre-meeting to 5 (strong willingness) post-meeting (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 dialogue meetings led to district leaders' increased risk perception, reduced concerns, and improvement in perceived vaccine benefits, vaccine access, and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. These could potentially influence public vaccine uptake if leaders are vaccinated publicly as a result. Broader use of such meetings with leaders could increase vaccine uptake among themselves and the community.

Readiness of health facilities to manage individuals infected with COVID-19, Uganda, June 2021.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed the capacity of health facilities globally, emphasizing the need for readiness to respond to rapid increases in cases. The first wave of COVID-19 in Uganda peaked in late 2020 and demonstrated challenges with facility readiness to manage cases. The second wave began in May 2021. In June 2021, we assessed the readiness of health facilities in Uganda to manage the second wave of COVID-19. METHODS: Referral hospitals managed severe COVID-19 patients, while lower-level health facilities screened, isolated, and managed mild cases. We assessed 17 of 20 referral hospitals in Uganda and 71 of 3,107 lower-level health facilities, selected using multistage sampling. We interviewed health facility heads in person about case management, coordination and communication and reporting, and preparation for the surge of COVID-19 during first and the start of the second waves of COVID-19, inspected COVID-19 treatment units (CTUs) and other service delivery points. We used an observational checklist to evaluate capacity in infection prevention, medicines, personal protective equipment (PPE), and CTU surge capacity. We used the "ReadyScore" criteria to classify readiness levels as > 80% ('ready'), 40-80% ('work to do'), and < 40% ('not ready') and tailored the assessments to the health facility level. Scores for the lower-level health facilities were weighted to approximate representativeness for their health facility type in Uganda. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range (IQR)) readiness scores were: 39% (IQR: 30, 51%) for all health facilities, 63% (IQR: 56, 75%) for referral hospitals, and 32% (IQR: 24, 37%) for lower-level facilities. Of 17 referral facilities, two (12%) were 'ready' and 15 (88%) were in the "work to do" category. Fourteen (82%) had an inadequate supply of medicines, 12 (71%) lacked adequate supply of oxygen, and 11 (65%) lacked space to expand their CTU. Fifty-five (77%) lower-level health facilities were "not ready," and 16 (23%) were in the "work to do" category. Seventy (99%) lower-level health facilities lacked medicines, 65 (92%) lacked PPE, and 53 (73%) lacked an emergency plan for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Few health facilities were ready to manage the second wave of COVID-19 in Uganda during June 2021. Significant gaps existed for essential medicines, PPE, oxygen, and space to expand CTUs. The Uganda Ministry of Health utilized our findings to set up additional COVID-19 wards in hospitals and deliver medicines and PPE to referral hospitals. Adequate readiness for future waves of COVID-19 requires additional support and action in Uganda.

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.

Individual and household risk factors for COVID-19 infection among household members of COVID-19 patients in home-based care in western Uganda, 2020.

Objective: To investigate factors associated with COVID-19 among household members of patients in home-based care (HBC) in western Uganda. Methods: We conducted a case-control and cohort study. Cases were reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed 1-30 November 2020 among persons in HBC in Kasese or Kabarole districts. We compared 78 case-households (≥1 secondary case) with 59 control-households (no secondary cases). The cohort included all case-household members. Data were captured by in-person questionnaire. We used bivariate regression to calculate odds and risk ratios. Results: Case-households were larger than control-households (mean 5.8 vs 4.3 members, P<0.0001). Having ≥1 household member per room (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.5, 95% CI 2.0-9.9), symptom development (aOR=2.3, 95% CI 1.1-5.0), or interaction with primary case-patient (aOR=4.6, 95% CI 1.4-14.7) increased odds of case-household status. Households assessed for suitability for HBC reduced odds of case-household status (aOR=0.4, 95% CI=0.2-0.8). Interacting with a primary case-patient increased the risk of individual infection among household members (adjusted risk ratio=1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.8). Conclusion: Household and individual factors influence secondary infection risk in HBC. Decisions about HBC should be made with these in mind.

Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak at a regional prison, Northern Uganda, September 2020.

Despite implementing measures to prevent introduction of COVID-19 in prisons, a COVID-19 outbreak occurred at Moroto Prison, northern Uganda in September 2020. We investigated factors associated with the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in the prison. A case was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a prisoner/staff at Moroto Prison during August-September 2020. We reviewed prison medical records to identify case-patients and interviewed prison and hospital staff to understand possible infection mechanisms for the index case-patient and opportunities for spread. In a retrospective cohort study, we interviewed all prisoners and available staff to identify risk factors. Data were analyzed using log-binomial regression. On September 1, 2020, a recently-hospitalized prisoner with unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection was admitted to Moroto Prison quarantine. He had become infected while sharing a hospital ward with a subsequently-diagnosed COVID-19 patient. A sample taken from the hospitalized prisoner on August 20 tested positive on September 3. Mass reactive testing at the prison on September 6, 14, and 15 revealed infection among 202/692 prisoners and 8/90 staff (overall attack rate=27%). One prison staff and one prisoner who cared for the sick prisoner while at the hospital re-entered the main prison without quarantining. Both tested positive on September 6. Food and cleaning service providers also regularly transited between quarantine and unrestricted prison areas. Using facemasks >50% of the time (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=0.26; 95%CI: 0.13-0.54), or in combination with handwashing after touching surfaces (aRR=0.25; 95%CI: 0.14-0.46) were protective. Prisoners recently transferred from other facilities to Moroto Prison had an increased risk of infection (aRR=1.50; 95%CI: 1.02-2.22). COVID-19 was likely introduced into Moroto Prison quarantine by a prisoner with hospital-acquired infection and delayed test results, and/or by caretakers who were not quarantined after hospital exposures. The outbreak may have amplified via shared food/cleaning service providers who transited between quarantined and non-quarantined prisoners. Facemasks and handwashing were protective. Reduced test turnaround time for the hospitalized prisoner could have averted this outbreak. Testing incoming prisoners for SARS-CoV-2 before quarantine, providing unrestricted soap/water for handwashing, and universal facemask use in prisons could mitigate risk of future outbreaks.

Comparative epidemiologic analysis of COVID-19 patients during the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Uganda.

Introduction: Uganda was affected by two major waves of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The first wave during late 2020 and the second wave in late April 2021. This study compared epidemiologic characteristics of hospitalized (HP) and non-hospitalized patients (NHP) with COVID-19 during the two waves of COVID-19 in Uganda. Methods: Wave 1 was defined as November-December 2020, and Wave 2 was defined as April-June 2021. In total, 800 patients were included in this study. Medical record data were collected for HP (200 for each wave). Contact information was retrieved for NHP who had polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (200 for each wave) from laboratory records; these patients were interviewed by telephone. Findings: A higher proportion of HP were male in Wave 1 compared with Wave 2 (73% vs 54%; P=0.0001). More HP had severe disease or died in Wave 2 compared with Wave 1 (65% vs 31%; P<0.0001). NHP in Wave 2 were younger than those in Wave 1, but this difference was not significant (mean age 29 vs 36 years; P=0.13). HP were significantly older than NHP in Wave 2 (mean age 48 vs 29 years; P<0.0001), but not Wave 1 (mean age 48 vs 43 years; P=0.31). Interpretation: Demographic and epidemiologic characteristics of HP and NHP differed between and within Waves 1 and 2 of COVID-19 in Uganda.

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.

Timing of onset of symptom for COVID-19 from publicly reported confirmed cases in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: incubation period for COVID-19, 2-14 (average 5-6) days. Timing of onset of COVID-19 signs and symptoms amongst cases in Uganda is however not known. METHODS: we utilized data on real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed cases to investigate symptom onset timing, from 21st March to 4th September 2020. Since timing of COVID-19 symptom onset is highly likely to be an interval rather than a point estimate, we generated 3-tertile categories: 1st, 2nd and 3rd tertile denoting symptom presentation within 3, 4 to 6 and at least 7 days. We considered all signs and symptoms in the database and analysed using Chi-square test and multinomial logistic regression, controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: we analysed a total of 420 symptomatic case-patients; 72.0% were males, median age of 33 years. Common symptoms were cough (47.6%), running nose (46.2%), fever (27.4%), headache (26.4%) and sore throat (20.5%). We utilized 293 cases with clinical symptom onset date recorded. Most of the patients, 37.5%, presented symptom within 3 days, 31.4% had symptoms in the 2nd and 31.4% in 3rd tertile, denoting 4 to 6 days and at least 7 days after exposure. Running nose (RRR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.24-0.84) and chest pain (RRR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.09-0.72) were more likely to occur in 3rd tertile than 1st or 2nd tertile. Cases aged ≥20 years were less likely to have symptoms in the 1st and 2nd tertile compared to ≤20 years (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: our study provides empirical evidence for epidemiological characterization of cases by signs and symptoms which complements current proposals for the length of active monitoring of persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

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.