Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Uganda: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Purpose: Vaccination toward coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been recommended and adopted as one of the measures of reducing the spread of this novel disease worldwide. Despite this, vaccine uptake among the Ugandan population has been low with reasons surrounding this being unknown. This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Uganda. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a total of 1042 adults in the districts of Mukono, Kiboga, Kumi, Soroti, Gulu, Amuru, Mbarara and Sheema from June to November 2021. Data were analyzed using STATA v.15. Barriers to vaccination were analyzed descriptively, while a binary logistic regression model was used to establish the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Results: Overall, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 58.6% (611). Respondents from urban areas and those in the eastern or northern region had increased odds of vaccine hesitancy. Further, higher education level and having knowledge on how COVID-19 is transmitted significantly reduced the odds of vaccine hesitancy. The study also noted individual perception such as COVID-19 kills only people with underlying medical conditions, as well as limited awareness on vaccine types or vaccination areas as the main reasons to vaccine hesitancy. Relatedly, other misconceptions like the ability of the vaccine to cause infertility, or spreading the virus into the body, and acknowledgment of alcohol as a possible cure were other reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion: The proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is still high among the population with this varying across regions. This is driven by low education level and limited awareness on the vaccination as well as perceived myths and misconceptions. The study recommends mass sensitization of the population on the benefits of vaccination using various channels as well as rolling out community-based outreach vaccination campaigns across the country.

Levels of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among Ugandan adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional evidence from a mobile phone-based population survey.

Objectives: Policy measures to slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), such as curfews and business closures, may have negative effects on mental health. Populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be particularly affected due to high rates of poverty and less comprehensive welfare systems, but the evidence is scarce. We evaluated predictors of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in Uganda, which implemented one of the world's most stringent lockdowns. Methods: We conducted a mobile phone-based cross-sectional survey from December 2020 through April 2021 among individuals aged 18 years or over in Uganda. We measured depression, anxiety, and psychological distress using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-2, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-2, and the PHQ-4. We applied linear regression to assess associations between experiences of COVID-19 (including fear of infection, social isolation, income loss, difficulty accessing medical care, school closings, and interactions with police) and PHQ-4 score, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics. Results: 29.2% of 4066 total participants reported scores indicating moderate psychological distress, and 12.1% reported scores indicating severe distress. Distress was most common among individuals who were female, had lower levels of education, and lived in households with children. Related to COVID-19, PHQ-4 score was significantly associated with difficulty accessing medical care, worries about COVID-19, worries about interactions with police over lockdown measures, and days spent at home. Conclusions: There is an urgent need to address the significant burden of psychological distress associated with COVID-19 and policy responses in LMICs. Pandemic mitigation strategies must consider mental health consequences.

World Health Organization and knowledge translation in maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has a mandate to promote maternal and child health and welfare through support to governments in the form of technical assistance, standards, epidemiological and statistical services, promoting teaching and training of healthcare professionals and providing direct aid in emergencies. The Strategic and Technical Advisory Group of Experts (STAGE) for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition (MNCAHN) was established in 2020 to advise the Director-General of WHO on issues relating to MNCAHN. STAGE comprises individuals from multiple low-income and middle-income and high-income countries, has representatives from many professional disciplines and with diverse experience and interests.Progress in MNCAHN requires improvements in quality of services, equity of access and the evolution of services as technical guidance, community needs and epidemiology changes. Knowledge translation of WHO guidance and other guidelines is an important part of this. Countries need effective and responsive structures for adaptation and implementation of evidence-based interventions, strategies to improve guideline uptake, education and training and mechanisms to monitor quality and safety. This paper summarises STAGE's recommendations on how to improve knowledge translation in MNCAHN. They include support for national and regional technical advisory groups and subnational committees that coordinate maternal and child health; support for national plans for MNCAHN and their implementation and monitoring; the production of a small number of consolidated MNCAHN guidelines to promote integrated and holistic care; education and quality improvement strategies to support guidelines uptake; monitoring of gaps in knowledge translation and operational research in MNCAHN.

Improving health and social systems for all children in LMICs: structural innovations to deliver high-quality services.

Despite health gains over the past 30 years, children and adolescents are not reaching their health potential in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition to health systems, social systems, such as schools, communities, families, and digital platforms, can be used to promote health. We did a targeted literature review of how well health and social systems are meeting the needs of children in LMICs using the framework of The Lancet Global Health Commission on high-quality health systems and we reviewed evidence for structural reforms in health and social sectors. We found that quality of services for children is substandard across both health and social systems. Health systems have deficits in care competence (eg, diagnosis and management), system competence (eg, timeliness, continuity, and referral), user experience (eg, respect and usability), service provision for common and serious conditions (eg, cancer, trauma, and mental health), and service offerings for adolescents. Education and social services for child health are limited by low funding and poor coordination with other sectors. Structural reforms are more likely to improve service quality substantially and at scale than are micro-level efforts. Promising approaches include governing for quality (eg, leadership, expert management, and learning systems), redesigning service delivery to maximise outcomes, and empowering families to better care for children and to demand quality care from health and social systems. Additional research is needed on health needs across the life course, health system performance for children and families, and large-scale evaluation of promising health and social programmes.

Social accountability and health systems' change, beyond the shock of Covid-19: drawing on histories of technical and activist approaches to rethink a shared code of practice.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of the value of "social accountability" to improve health systems performance and to address health inequities, has increased over the last decades, with different schools of thought engaging in robust dialogue. This article explores the tensions between health policy and systems research and practice on the one hand, and health equity-focussed activism on the other, as distinct yet interacting processes that have both been impacted by the shock effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. This extended commentary brings multidisciplinary voices seeking to look back at health systems history and fundamental social-institutional systems' behaviors in order to contextualize these current debates over how best to push social accountability efforts forward. ANALYSIS: There is a documented history of tension between long and short processes of international health cooperation and intervention. Social accountability approaches, as a more recent strategy to improve health systems performance, intersect with this overarching history of negotiation between differently situated actors both global and local on whether to pursue sustained, slow, often community-driven change or to focus on rapid, measurable, often top-down interventions. Covid-19, as a global public health emergency, resulted in calls for urgent action which have unsurprisingly displaced some of the energy and aspiration for systemic transformation processes. A combination of accountability approaches and mechanisms have their own legitimacy in fostering health systems change, demanding collaboration between those that move both fast and slow, top-down and bottom-up. CONCLUSION: We argue that social accountability, much like all efforts to strengthen health systems, is "everybody's business" and that we must understand better the historical processes that have shaped the field of practice over time to move forward. These differences of perspective, knowledge-base and positioning vis-a-vis interventions or longer-term political commitment should not drive a conflict of legitimacy but instead be named, subsequently enabling the development of a shared code of conduct that applies to the breadth of actors involved in social accountability work. If we are concerned about the state of/status of social accountability within the context of "building back better" we must approach collaboration with a willingness to create dialogue across distinct disciplinary, technical and politically-informed ways of working.

Impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes in a rural Ugandan neonatal unit: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During the early COVID-19 pandemic travel in Uganda was tightly restricted which affected demand for and access to care for pregnant women and small and sick newborns. In this study we describe changes to neonatal outcomes in one rural central Ugandan newborn unit before and during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We report outcomes from admissions captured in an electronic dataset of a well-established newborn unit before (September 2019 to March 2020) and during the early COVID-19 period (April-September 2020) as well as two seasonally matched periods one year prior. We report excess mortality as the percent change in mortality over what was expected based on seasonal trends. FINDINGS: The study included 2,494 patients, 567 of whom were admitted during the early COVID-19 period. During the pandemic admissions decreased by 14%. Patients born outside the facility were older on admission than previously (median 1 day of age vs. admission on the day of birth). There was an increase in admissions with birth asphyxia (22% vs. 15% of patients). Mortality was higher during COVID-19 than previously [16% vs. 11%, p = 0.017]. Patients born outside the facility had a relative increase of 55% above seasonal expected mortality (21% vs. 14%, p = 0.028). During this period patients had decreased antenatal care, restricted transport and difficulty with expenses and support. The hospital had difficulty with maternity staffing and supplies. There was significant community and staff fear of COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: Increased newborn mortality during the early COVID-19 pandemic at this facility was likely attributed to disruptions affecting maternal and newborn demand for, access to and quality of perinatal healthcare. Lockdown conditions and restrictions to public transit were significant barriers to maternal and newborn wellbeing, and require further focus by national and regional health officials.