Increasing Local Disease Preparedness and Surveillance Capacity for Global Health Security: A Cluster-Randomised Control Trial (preprint)

Background: Low-income countries are often characterized by poor health infrastructures and lack systems needed to timely detect and control disease outbreaks, such as the 2014-16 Ebola Viral Disease and COVID-19. In such contexts, a “One Health” approach, which involves investing in both human and animal health systems, plausibly improves local health outcomes by enabling early detection of zoonotic diseases before they are transmitted to humans, and by timely triggering a health system response needed to mitigate possible outbreaks. There is an urgent call to translate One Health into action and create inclusive and sustainable policies. There is however limited direct evidence on the gains from One Health approaches. We contribute here by using a randomised intervention to assess the impact of a participatory community-based One Health program.Methods: As part of a cluster-randomised control trial, government and communities recruited, trained and installed Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) to work alongside Community Health Workers (CHWs) in 300 randomly selected rural villages in Sierra Leone. Another 63 villages were randomly selected as control sites and had CHWs exclusively. CAHWs provided essential animal health services, disseminated information regarding animal and human health best practices, and actively participated in surveillance efforts by reporting suspected disease symptoms to government supervisors. We investigated program impacts on human health as well as key intermediary outcomes, including animal health, animal and human health-related behaviours, integration into public services, and household wealth. The trial is registered at clinicaltrialregister.nl (# 21660) and OSF (https://osf.io/9xfv3).Findings: In July and August 2017, the community-based One Health program successfully recruited, trained and installed CAHWs across 287 villages. Throughout the program's duration, spanning from July 2017 to July 2019, the CAHWs reported on 17,813 suspected disease-related events. Using survey data from 2,538 respondents, collected in March and April 2020, we found no evidence of impacts on human health (-0.010 standard deviation units (SDU), 95% CI -0.131, 0.111). The program did improve intermediary outcomes including animal health (0.157 SDU, 95% CI 0.022, 0.293), animal husbandry practices (0.127 SDU, 95% CI -0.022, 0.276), human health behaviours (0.137 SDU, 95% CI -0.007, 0.281), integration into public services (0.300 SDU, 95% CI 0.116, 0.484), and households’ attitudes towards disease reporting (0.263 SDU, 95% CI 0.109, 0.418).Interpretation: Participatory community-based One Health interventions can increase preparedness against zoonotic diseases.Trial Registration: The trial is registered at clinicaltrialregister.nl (# 21660) and OSF (https://osf.io/9xfv3).Funding: The study was funded by NWO grant #451-14-001 and #VI.Vidi.191.154, ESRC grant ES/J017620/1, the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Ghana, the International Growth Center, New York University – Abu Dhabi and the World Bank REDISSE program.Declaration of Interest: We declare no competing interests.Ethical Approval: Before the onset of the program, formal approval was obtained from local authorities. We obtained verbal informed consent from all study participants. Ethics approval was obtained from the Office of the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLERC 16102017) and Columbia University (AAAR5175).

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy in Low and Middle Income Countries, and Implications for Messaging (preprint)

BackgroundAs vaccination campaigns are deployed worldwide, addressing vaccine hesitancy is of critical importance to ensure sufficient immunization coverage. We analyzed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 samples covering ten low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa, and South America, and two higher income countries (Russia and the United States). MethodsStandardized survey responses were collected from 45,928 individuals between June 2020 and January 2021. We estimate vaccine acceptance with robust standard errors clustered at the study level. We analyze stated reasons for vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, and the most trusted sources for advice on vaccination, and we disaggregate acceptance rates by gender, age, and education level. FindingsWe document willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine across LMIC samples, ranging from 67% (Burkina Faso) to 97% (Nepal). Willingness was considerably higher in LMICs (80%) than in the United States (65%) and Russia (30%). Vaccine acceptance was primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against the disease (91%). Concern about side effects (40%) was the most common reason for reluctance. Health workers were considered the most trusted sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. InterpretationGiven high levels of stated willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine across LMIC samples, our study suggests that prioritizing efficient and equitable vaccine distribution to LMICs will yield high returns in promoting immunization on a global scale. Messaging and other community-level interventions in these contexts should be designed to help translate intentions into uptake, and emphasize safety and efficacy. Trusted health workers are ideally positioned to deliver these messages. FundingBeyond Conflict, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Columbia University, Givewell.org, Ghent University, HSE University Basic Research Program, International Growth Centre, Jameel Poverty Action Lab Crime and Violence Initiative, London School of Economics and Political Science, Mulago Foundation, NOVAFRICA at the Nova School of Business and Economics, NYU Abu Dhabi, Oxford Policy Management, Social Science Research Council, Trinity College Dublin COVID19 Response Funding, UK Aid, UKRI GCRF/Newton Fund, United Nations Office for Project Services, Weiss Family Fund, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Yale Institute for Global Health, Yale Macmillan Center, and anonymous donors to IPA and Y-RISE