Policy responses to COVID-19 in Sri Lanka and the consideration of Indigenous Peoples ☆

COVID-19 has had uneven impacts on health and well-being, with Indigenous communities in the Global South facing some of the highest risks. Focusing on the experience of Sri Lanka, this study identifies key policy responses to COVID-19, documents how they evolved over two years of the pandemic, and examines if and how government responses have addressed issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. Drawing upon an analysis of policy documents (n=110) and interviews with policymakers (n=20), we characterize seven key policy responses implemented by the Sri Lankan government: i) testing for and identifying COVID-19;ii) quarantine procedures;iii) provisional clinical treatments;iv) handling other diseases during COVID-19;v) movement;vi) guidelines to be adhered to by the general public;and vii) health and vaccination. The nature of these responses changed as the pandemic progressed. There is no evidence that policy development or implementation incorporated the voices and needs of Indigenous Peoples.

Policy responses to COVID-19 in Sri Lanka and the consideration of Indigenous Peoples.

COVID-19 has had uneven impacts on health and well-being, with Indigenous communities in the Global South facing some of the highest risks. Focusing on the experience of Sri Lanka, this study identifies key policy responses to COVID-19, documents how they evolved over two years of the pandemic, and examines if and how government responses have addressed issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. Drawing upon an analysis of policy documents (n = 110) and interviews with policymakers (n = 20), we characterize seven key policy responses implemented by the Sri Lankan government: i) testing for and identifying COVID-19; ii) quarantine procedures; iii) provisional clinical treatments; iv) handling other diseases during COVID-19; v) movement; vi) guidelines to be adhered to by the general public; and vii) health and vaccination. The nature of these responses changed as the pandemic progressed. There is no evidence that policy development or implementation incorporated the voices and needs of Indigenous Peoples.

Double Face Mask Use for COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control Among Medical Students at Makerere University: A Cross-Section Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The second wave of COVID-19 greatly affected the health care and education systems in Uganda, due to the infection itself and the lockdowns instituted. Double masking has been suggested as a safe alternative to double-layered masks, where the quality of the latter may not be guaranteed. This study aimed to determine patterns of double mask use among undergraduate medical students at Makerere University, Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire. All students enrolled at the College of Health Sciences; Makerere University received the link to this questionnaire to participate. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with double mask use. RESULTS: A total of 348 participants were enrolled. The majority (61.8%) were male; the median age was 23 (range: 32) years. Up to 10.3%, 42%, and 4.3% reported past COVID-19 positive test, history of COVID-19 symptoms, and having comorbidities, respectively. Up to 40.8% had been vaccinated against COVID-19. More than half (68.7%) believed double masking was superior to single masking for COVID-19 IPC, but only 20.5% reported double masking. Participants with a past COVID-19 positive test [aOR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8, p = 0.026] and participants who believed double masks had a superior protective advantage [aOR: 20; 95% CI: 4.9-86.2, p < 0.001] were more likely to double mask. Lack of trust in the quality of masks (46.5%) was the most frequent motivation for double masking, while excessive sweating (68.4%), high cost of masks (66.4%), and difficulty in breathing (66.1%) were the major barriers. CONCLUSION: Very few medical students practice double masking to prevent COVID-19. Coupled with inconsistencies in the availability of the recommended four-layered masks in Uganda and increased exposure in lecture rooms and clinical rotations, medical students may be at risk of contracting COVID-19.

Knowledge on Infection Prevention and Control and associated factors among undergraduate health professional students at Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: To practice adequate Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures, health professional students need to have adequate knowledge of IPC. In this study, we assessed the knowledge of health professional students at Makerere University College of Health Sciences on Infection Prevention and Control. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among health professional students studying at Makerere University College of Health Sciences located in Kampala, Uganda. An adapted questionnaire was used to measure knowledge on Infection Prevention and Control among students. RESULTS: A total of 202 health professional students were included in the study. The mean age was 24.43 years. Majority were male 63.37% (n = 128), from the school of medicine 70.79% (n = 143) and used one source of information for IPC 49.50% (n = 100). Being in year three (Adjusted coefficient, 6.08; 95% CI, 2.04-10.13; p-value = 0.003), year four (Adjusted coefficient, 10.87; 95% CI, 6.91-14.84; p < 0.001) and year five (Adjusted coefficient, 8.61; 95% CI, 4.45-12.78; p < 0.001) were associated with a higher mean in total percentage score of knowledge on IPC compared to being in year one. CONCLUSION: IPC knowledge was good among health professional students in Makerere University although more emphasis is needed to improve on their IPC knowledge in various sections like hand hygiene. Infection Prevention and Control courses can be taught to these students starting from their first year of university education.