A characterization of cross-border use of health services in a transborder population at the Mexico-Guatemala border, September-November 2021.

BACKGROUND: Cross-border use of health services is an important aspect of life in border regions. Little is known about the cross-border use of health services in neighboring low- and middle-income countries. Understanding use of health services in contexts of high cross-border mobility, such as at the Mexico-Guatemala border, is crucial for national health systems planning. This article aims to describe the characteristics of the cross-border use of health care services by transborder populations at the Mexico-Guatemala border, as well as the sociodemographic and health-related variables associated with use. METHODS: Between September-November 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using a probability (time-venue) sampling design at the Mexico-Guatemala border. We conducted a descriptive analysis of cross-border use of health services and assessed the association of use with sociodemographic and mobility characteristics by means of logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 6,991 participants were included in this analysis; 82.9% were Guatemalans living in Guatemala, 9.2% were Guatemalans living in Mexico, 7.8% were Mexicans living in Mexico, and 0.16% were Mexicans living in Guatemala. 2.6% of all participants reported having a health problem in the past two weeks, of whom 58.1% received care. Guatemalans living in Guatemala were the only group reporting cross-border use of health services. In multivariate analyses, Guatemalans living in Guatemala working in Mexico (compared to not working in Mexico) (OR 3.45; 95% CI 1.02,11.65), and working in agriculture/cattle, industry, or construction while in Mexico (compared to working in other sectors) (OR 26.67; 95% CI 1.97,360.85), were associated with cross-border use. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-border use of health services in this region is related to transborder work (i.e., circumstantial use of cross-border health services). This points to the importance of considering the health needs of migrant workers in Mexican health policies and developing strategies to facilitate and increase their access to health services.

Capacity building at points of entry during COVID-19 pandemic: harmonising training curriculum for Economic Community of West African States.

This paper describes the process for developing, validating and disseminating through a train-the-trainer (TOT) event a standardised curriculum for public health capacity building for points of entry (POE) staff across the 15-member state Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) that reflects both international standards and national guidelines.A five-phase process was used in developing the curriculum: phase (1) assessment of existing materials developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Africa CDC and the West African Economic and Monetary Union, (2) design of retained and new, harmonised content, (3) validation by the national leadership to produce final content, (4) implementation of the harmonised curriculum during a regional TOT, and (5) evaluation of the curriculum.Of the nine modules assessed in English and French, the technical team agreed to retain six harmonised modules providing materials for 10 days of intensive training. Following the TOT, most participants (n=28/30, 93.3%) indicated that the International Health Regulations and emergency management modules were relevant to their work and 96.7% (n=29/30) reported that the training should be cascaded to POE staff in their countries.The ECOWAS harmonised POE curriculum provides a set of training materials and expectations for national port health and POE staff to use across the region. This initiative contributes to reducing the effort required by countries to identify emergency preparedness and response capacity-building tools for border health systems in the Member States in a highly connected region.

Using Population Mobility Patterns to Adapt COVID-19 Response Strategies in 3 East Africa Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic spread between neighboring countries through land, water, and air travel. Since May 2020, ministries of health for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Uganda have sought to clarify population movement patterns to improve their disease surveillance and pandemic response efforts. Ministry of Health-led teams completed focus group discussions with participatory mapping using country-adapted Population Connectivity Across Borders toolkits. They analyzed the qualitative and spatial data to prioritize locations for enhanced COVID-19 surveillance, community outreach, and cross-border collaboration. Each country employed varying toolkit strategies, but all countries applied the results to adapt their national and binational communicable disease response strategies during the pandemic, although the Democratic Republic of the Congo used only the raw data rather than generating datasets and digitized products. This 3-country comparison highlights how governments create preparedness and response strategies adapted to their unique sociocultural and cross-border dynamics to strengthen global health security.

A comparison of telemedicine and in-person neurology visits: what are the factors that patients consider when selecting future visit type?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits. BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Ambulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Across visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake in a Transborder Population at the Mexico-Guatemala Border, September-November 2021.

Assessing COVID-19 vaccination uptake of transborder populations is critical for informing public health policies. We conducted a probability (time-venue) survey of adults crossing from Mexico into Guatemala from September to November 2021, with the objective of describing COVID-19 vaccination status, willingness to get vaccinated, and associated factors. The main outcomes were receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, being fully vaccinated, and willingness to get vaccinated. We assessed the association of outcomes with sociodemographic characteristics using logistic regressions. Of 6518 participants, 50.6% (95%CI 48.3,53.0) were vaccinated (at least one dose); 23.3% (95%CI 21.4,25.2) were unvaccinated but willing to get vaccinated, and 26.1% (95%CI 24.1,28.3) were unvaccinated and unwilling to get vaccinated. Those living in Mexico, independent of country of birth, had the highest proportion vaccinated. The main reason for unwillingness was fear of side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (47.7%, 95%CI 43.6,51.9). Education level was positively associated with the odds of partial and full vaccination as well as willingness to get vaccinated. People identified as Catholic had higher odds of getting vaccinated and being fully vaccinated than members of other religious groups or the non-religious. Further studies should explore barriers to vaccination among those willing to get vaccinated and the motives of the unwilling.

Countries with delayed COVID-19 introduction - characteristics, drivers, gaps, and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Three months after the first reported cases, COVID-19 had spread to nearly 90% of World Health Organization (WHO) member states and only 24 countries had not reported cases as of 30 March 2020. This analysis aimed to 1) assess characteristics, capability to detect and monitor COVID-19, and disease control measures in these 24 countries, 2) understand potential factors for the reported delayed COVID-19 introduction, and 3) identify gaps and opportunities for outbreak preparedness, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We collected and analyzed publicly available information on country characteristics, COVID-19 testing, influenza surveillance, border measures, and preparedness activities in these countries. We also assessed the association between the temporal spread of COVID-19 in all countries with reported cases with globalization indicator and geographic location. RESULTS: Temporal spreading of COVID-19 was strongly associated with countries' globalization indicator and geographic location. Most of the 24 countries with delayed COVID-19 introduction were LMICs; 88% were small island or landlocked developing countries. As of 30 March 2020, only 38% of these countries reported in-country COVID-19 testing capability, and 71% reported conducting influenza surveillance during the past year. All had implemented two or more border measures, (e.g., travel restrictions and border closures) and multiple preparedness activities (e.g., national preparedness plans and school closing). CONCLUSIONS: Limited testing capacity suggests that most of the 24 delayed countries may have lacked the capability to detect and identify cases early through sentinel and case-based surveillance. Low global connectedness, geographic isolation, and border measures were common among these countries and may have contributed to the delayed introduction of COVID-19 into these countries. This paper contributes to identifying opportunities for pandemic preparedness, such as increasing disease detection, surveillance, and international collaborations. As the global situation continues to evolve, it is essential for countries to improve and prioritize their capacities to rapidly prevent, detect, and respond, not only for COVID-19, but also for future outbreaks.