Community Drug Distributor Knowledge, Attitudes, and Motivation Surrounding Mass Drug Administration for Soil-Transmitted Helminths in India.

Background: DeWorm3 is an ongoing multi-country community-based cluster-randomized trial assessing the feasibility of interrupting transmission of soil-transmitted helminths (STH) with community-wide mass drug administration (cMDA). In Tamil Nadu, India, community drug distributors (CDDs) worked with DeWorm3 field staff to counsel community members and deliver door-to-door deworming treatment. As CDDs were likely to influence successful delivery of cMDA, we describe drivers of CDDs' knowledge, attitudes, and motivation toward delivery of cMDA. Methods: In this convergent mixed-methods study, a questionnaire on STH and cMDA was administered to 104 CDDs and 17 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted. Key outcomes in the quantitative and qualitative analyses included CDDs' knowledge about STH and cMDA and attitudes toward cMDA for STH. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the strength of associations between independent and outcome variables. The FGDs were analyzed using a priori thematic coding. Results: CDDs who completed at least secondary school education [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.71, 95% CI: 1.16-6.33] and had prior experience in health programs (aOR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.15-6.44) were more knowledgeable about STH and cMDA. CDDs belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (aOR: 2.37, 95% CI: 1.04-5.39), and to households engaged in a skilled occupation (aOR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.21-6.34) had a more positive attitude toward cMDA for STH. The FGDs showed that while there were myths and misconceptions about STH, many CDDs believed that the adult population in their communities were infected with STH, and that a door-to-door drug delivery strategy would be optimal to reach adults. Conclusions: Educational and socioeconomic backgrounds and experience in health programs should be considered while designing CDD trainings. Along with cMDA delivery for STH, as CDD do share community myths and misconceptions around STH, they should be proactively addressed during the CDD training to strengthen competency in counseling.

Comparing COVID-19 physical distancing policies: results from a physical distancing intensity coding framework for Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, Ukraine, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the differences in timing and composition of physical distancing policies is important to evaluate the early global response to COVID-19. A physical distancing intensity monitoring framework comprising 16 domains was recently published to compare physical distancing approaches across 12 U.S. States. We applied this framework to a diverse set of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, and Ukraine) to test the appropriateness of this framework in the global context and to compare the policy responses in these LMICs with a sample of U.S. States during the first 100-days of the pandemic. RESULTS: The LMICs in our sample adopted wide ranging physical distancing policies. The highest peak daily physical distancing intensity during this period was: Botswana (4.60); India (4.40); Ukraine (4.40); Namibia (4.20); Mozambique (3.87), and Jamaica (3.80). The number of days each country stayed at peak policy intensity ranged from 12-days (Jamaica) to more than 67-days (Mozambique). We found some key similarities and differences, including substantial differences in whether and how countries expressly required certain groups to stay at home. Despite the much higher number of cases in the US, the physical distancing responses in our LMIC sample were generally more intense than in the U.S. States, but results vary depending on the U.S. State. The peak policy intensity for the U.S. 12-state average was 3.84, which would place it lower than every LMIC in this sample except Jamaica. The LMIC sample countries also reached peak physical distancing intensity earlier in outbreak progression compared to the U.S. states sample. The easing of physical distancing policies in the LMIC sample did not discernably correlate with change in COVID-19 incidence. CONCLUSIONS: This physical distancing intensity framework was appropriate for the LMIC context with only minor adaptations. This framework may be useful for ongoing monitoring of physical distancing policy approaches and for use in effectiveness analyses. This analysis helps to highlight the differing paths taken by the countries in this sample and may provide lessons to other countries regarding options for structuring physical distancing policies in response to COVID-19 and future outbreaks.

Implementation Science to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to expand globally, requiring massive public health responses from national and local governments. These bodies have taken heterogeneous approaches to their responses, including when and how to introduce and enforce evidence-based interventions-such as social distancing, hand-washing, personal protective equipment (PPE), and testing. In this commentary, we reflect on opportunities for implementation science to contribute meaningfully to the COVID-19 pandemic response. We reflect backwards on missed opportunities in emergency preparedness planning, using the example of PPE stockpiling and supply management; this planning could have been strengthened through process mapping with consensus-building, microplanning with simulation, and stakeholder engagement. We propose current opportunities for action, focusing on enhancing the adoption, fidelity, and sustainment of hand washing and social distancing; we can combine qualitative data, policy analysis, and dissemination science to inform agile and rapid adjustment to social marketing strategies to enhance their penetration. We look to future opportunities to enhance the integration of new evidence in decision-making, focusing on serologic and virologic testing systems; we can leverage simulation and other systems engineering modeling to identify ideal system structures. Finally, we discuss the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic challenges implementation science to become more rapid, rigorous, and nimble in its approach, and integrate with public health practice. In summary, we articulate the ways in which implementation science can inform, and be informed by, the COVID-19 pandemic, looking backwards, proposing actions for the moment, and approaches for the future.