Gender disparities and associated factors to intention to getting a second dose of COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine among adult populations in selected facilities of Lusaka, Zambia

As COVID-19 vaccines are becoming more available, there is also a growing need to understand the population receiving the doses, existing inequalities and the intention to getting the second vaccine dose among the populations that receive the vaccines. We evaluated gender inequalities and intention to uptake of the second dose of COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine among adult populations in selected urban facilities of Lusaka, Zambia. A cross-sectional study design was conducted between May and June 2021 among adults who received AstraZeneca vaccine from three selected urban facilities of Lusaka, Zambia. Phone-based interviews were conducted 6 weeks after the first dose of the vaccine. Descriptive analysis and mixed-effect logistic regression were done using STATA version 16.2. Of the 1321 adults who had received AstraZeneca vaccine, 868 respondents completed the questionnaire. About, 47% (408/868) were females and 53% (460/868) were males. Median age in the study was 40 years. Majority of males were educated (54%) and employed (57%). Furthermore, majority of females that got the first dose of AstraZeneca reported experiencing side effects (76.98%) compared to males (64.24%). Among study participants, 93.7% intended to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine, of whom 46.7% (380/814) were females and 52.9% (434/814) were males. Majority of participants that did not intend to get a second dose were not married (55.56%). Only age (AOR, 1.05;95% CI, 1.02–1.08) predicted intention to getting a second dose of AstraZeneca vaccine. We found important gender-dependent differences in the side effects reported by females that received the first dose of Astra Zeneca. Finding that intention to get the second dose of the vaccine increased with age suggests a need for enhancing COVID-19 vaccination programmes targeting young people and a need for further research to identify specific adverse effects of COVID-19 Astra Zeneca vaccines.

Psychological impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on health professions students at the University of Zambia: a cross-sectional study.

Introduction: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has negatively impacted the mental health of students across the globe. In Zambia, little is known about the psychological impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare students. This study assessed the psychological impact of COVID-19 on health professions students at the University of Zambia. Methods: this cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2021 to October 2021. Anxiety and depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify the factors associated with anxiety and depression among the participants. Data were analysed using Stata 16.1. Results: of the 452 students, 57.5% were female, with the majority aged between 19 and 24 years. Overall, 65% (95% CI: 60.5-69.4) experienced anxiety, while 86% (95% CI: 82.7-89.3) experienced depression. Participants whose income was affected were more likely to experience anxiety (aOR; 2.09, 95% CI: 1.29-3.37) and depression (aOR; 2.87, 95% CI: 1.53-5.38). Anxiety was associated with difficulty in observing the COVID-19 preventive measures (aOR; 1.84, 95% CI: 1.21-2.81). Being depressed was associated with having a chronic condition (aOR; 3.98, 95% CI: 1.67-9.50) or a relative or friend who died from COVID-19 (aOR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06-3.70). Conclusion: many students experienced anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 third wave of infections. This calls for mitigation measures because continued anxiety and depression can affect the academic performance of students. Fortunately, most of the associated factors are modifiable and can easily be targeted when formulating interventions to reduce anxiety and depression among students.

Gender disparities and associated factors to intention to getting a second dose of COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine among adult populations in selected facilities of Lusaka, Zambia.

As COVID-19 vaccines are becoming more available, there is also a growing need to understand the population receiving the doses, existing inequalities and the intention to getting the second vaccine dose among the populations that receive the vaccines. We evaluated gender inequalities and intention to uptake of the second dose of COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine among adult populations in selected urban facilities of Lusaka, Zambia. A cross-sectional study design was conducted between May and June 2021 among adults who received AstraZeneca vaccine from three selected urban facilities of Lusaka, Zambia. Phone-based interviews were conducted 6 weeks after the first dose of the vaccine. Descriptive analysis and mixed-effect logistic regression were done using STATA version 16.2. Of the 1321 adults who had received AstraZeneca vaccine, 868 respondents completed the questionnaire. About, 47% (408/868) were females and 53% (460/868) were males. Median age in the study was 40 years. Majority of males were educated (54%) and employed (57%). Furthermore, majority of females that got the first dose of AstraZeneca reported experiencing side effects (76.98%) compared to males (64.24%). Among study participants, 93.7% intended to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine, of whom 46.7% (380/814) were females and 52.9% (434/814) were males. Majority of participants that did not intend to get a second dose were not married (55.56%). Only age (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) predicted intention to getting a second dose of AstraZeneca vaccine. We found important gender-dependent differences in the side effects reported by females that received the first dose of Astra Zeneca. Finding that intention to get the second dose of the vaccine increased with age suggests a need for enhancing COVID-19 vaccination programmes targeting young people and a need for further research to identify specific adverse effects of COVID-19 Astra Zeneca vaccines.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Assessing required SARS-CoV-2 blanket testing rates for possible control of the outbreak in the epicentre Lusaka province of Zambia with consideration for asymptomatic individuals: A simple mathematical modelling study.

INTRODUCTION: The novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), in Africa is characterised by a more substantial proportion of asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) individuals thought to be playing a role in the spread of the infection. The exact proportion and degree of infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals remains unclear. Studies however indicate that their management is crucial for control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODOLOGY: We developed a simplified deterministic susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) mathematical model to assess the effect of active isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected but asymptomatic individuals through blanket testing for control of the outbreak in Lusaka Province of Zambia. Here we modelled two scenarios; (1) assuming asymptomatic individuals comprised 70% of all COVID-19 cases and (2) asymptomatic individuals comprised only 50% of the cases. For contrast, the model was assessed first under the assumption that asymptomatic individuals are equally as infectious as symptomatic individuals and then secondly, and more likely, assuming asymptomatic individuals are only half as infectious as symptomatic individuals. RESULTS: For the model assuming 70% asymptomatic cases, a minimum sustained daily blanket testing rate of ≥ 7911 tests/100000 population was sufficient to control the outbreak if asymptomatic individuals are only half as infectious while if equal infectiousness was assumed then a testing rate of ≥ 10028 tests/ 100000 population would be required. For 50% asymptomatic, minimum blanket testing rates of ≥ 4540 tests/ 100000 population was sufficient to control the outbreak at both assumed levels of infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals relative to symptomatic individuals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our model predicts that active isolation of COVID-19 cases, including asymptomatic individuals, through blanket testing can be used as a possible measure for the control of the SARS-Cov-2 transmission in Lusaka, Zambia, but it would come at a high cost.