Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
2.
Int J Public Health ; 67: 1604854, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1933949

ABSTRACT

Objective: To estimate the economic impact of border closure and social distancing by estimating the decline of gross domestic product (GDP) in Kenya, Singapore and Thailand. Methods: We analysed secondary data retrospectively. To calculate impact of NPIs on GDP, the relationship between GDP and stock market index was examined using ordinary least squares (OLS). Then, autoregressive and moving averages (ARMA) model was used to examine the impact of NPI on stock market index. The change in GDP due to NPIs was derived by multiplying coefficients of OLS and ARMA models. Results: An increase in stock market index correlated with an increase in GDP, while both social distancing and border closure negatively correlated with stock market index. Implementation of NPIs correlated with the decline in GDP. Thai border closure had a greater decline in GDP than social distancing; Kenya exhibited the same trends; Singapore had the opposite trend. Conclusion: We quantified the magnitude of economic impact of NPIs in terms of GDP decline by linking stock market index and GDP. This approach may be applicable in other settings.


Subject(s)
Retrospective Studies , Humans , Kenya , Singapore , Thailand
3.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-336035

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background Few studies have assessed the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in settings where most of the population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya from a societal perspective over a 1.5-year time frame. An age-structured transmission model assumed at least 80% of the population to have prior natural immunity when an immune escape variant was introduced. We examine the effect of slow (18 months) or rapid (6 months) vaccine roll-out with vaccine coverage of 30%, 50% or 70% of the adult (> 18 years) population prioritizing roll-out in over 50-year olds (80% uptake in all scenarios). Cost data were obtained from primary analyses. We assumed vaccine procurement at $7 per dose and vaccine delivery costs of $3.90-$6.11 per dose. The cost-effectiveness threshold was USD 919. Findings Slow roll-out at 30% coverage largely targets over 50-year-olds and resulted in 54% fewer deaths (8,132(7,914 to 8,373)) than no vaccination and was cost-saving (ICER=US$-1,343 (-1,345 to - 1,341) per DALY averted). Increasing coverage to 50% and 70%, further reduced deaths by 12% (810 (757 to 872) and 5% (282 (251 to 317) but was not cost-effective, using Kenya’s cost-effectiveness threshold ($ 919.11). Rapid roll-out with 30% coverage averted 63% more deaths and was more cost-saving (ICER=$-1,607 (-1,609 to -1,604) per DALY averted) compared to slow roll-out at the same coverage level, but 50% and 70% coverage scenarios were not cost-effective. Interpretation With prior exposure partially protecting much of the Kenyan population, vaccination of young adults may no longer be cost-effective. KEY QUESTIONS What is already known? The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial number of cases and deaths in low-and middle-income countries. COVID-19 vaccines are considered the main strategy of curtailing the pandemic. However, many African nations are still at the early phase of vaccination. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines are useful in estimating value for money and illustrate opportunity costs. However, there is a need to balance these economic outcomes against the potential impact of vaccination. What are the new findings? In Kenya, a targeted vaccination strategy that prioritizes those of an older age and is deployed at a rapid rollout speed achieves greater marginal health impacts and is better value for money. Given the existing high-level population protection to COVID-19 due to prior exposure, vaccination of younger adults is less cost-effective in Kenya. What do the new findings imply? Rapid deployment of vaccines during a pandemic averts more cases, hospitalisations, and deaths and is more cost-effective. Against a context of constrained fiscal space for health, it is likely more prudent for Kenya to target those at severe risk of disease and possibly other vulnerable populations rather than to the whole population.

4.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 439, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are considered the path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government of Kenya is implementing a phased strategy to vaccinate the Kenyan population, initially targeting populations at high risk of severe disease and infection. We estimated the financial and economic unit costs of procuring and delivering the COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya across various vaccination strategies. METHODS: We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of COVID-19 vaccine delivery, from a health systems perspective. Document reviews and key informant interviews(n = 12) were done to inform the activities, assumptions and the resources required. Unit prices were derived from document reviews or from market prices. Both financial and economic vaccine procurement costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, and the vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses were estimated and reported in 2021USD. RESULTS: The financial costs of vaccine procurement per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $2.89-$13.09 in the 30% and 100% coverage levels respectively, however, the economic cost was $17.34 across all strategies. Financial vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, ranged from $4.28-$3.29 in the 30% and 100% coverage strategies: While the economic delivery costs were two to three times higher than the financial costs. The total procurement and delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $7.34-$16.47 for the financial costs and $29.7-$24.68 for the economic costs for the 30% and 100% coverage respectively. With the exception of procurement costs, the main cost driver of financial and economic delivery costs was supply chain costs (47-59%) and advocacy, communication and social mobilization (29-35%) respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis presents cost estimates that can be used to inform local policy and may further inform parameters used in cost-effectiveness models. The results could potentially be adapted and adjusted to country-specific assumptions to enhance applicability in similar low-and middle-income settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Programs , Kenya/epidemiology , Pandemics
5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-318481

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 mitigation measures have major ramifications on all aspects of people’s livelihoods. Based on data collected in February 2021, we present an analysis of the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures in three counties in Kenya. Methods: : We conducted a cross-sectional phone-based survey in three counties in Kenya to assess the level of disruption across seven domains: income, food insecurity, schooling, domestic tension/violence, communal violence, mental health, and decision-making. An overall disruption index was computed from the seven domains using principal component analysis. We used a linear regression model to examine the determinants of vulnerability to disruptions as measured by the index. We used concentration curves and indices to assess inequality in the disruption domains and the overall disruption index. Results: : The level of disruption in income was the highest (74%), while the level of disruption for domestic tension/violence was the lowest (30%). Factors associated with increased vulnerability to the overall disruption index included: older age, being married, belonging in the lowest socio-economic tertile and receiving COVID-19 related assistance. The concentration curves showed that all the seven domains of disruption were disproportionately concentrated among households in the lowest socio-economic tertile, a finding that was supported by the concentration index of the overall disruption index (CI = - 0.022;p = 0.074). Conclusion: The COVID-19 mitigation measures resulted in unintended socio-economic effects that unfairly affected certain vulnerable groups, including those in the lowest socio-economic group and the elderly. Measures to protect households against the adverse socio-economic effects of the pandemic should be scaled up and targeted to the most vulnerable, with attention to the constantly evolving nature of the pandemic.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296892

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 mitigation measures have major ramifications on all aspects of people’s livelihoods. Based on data collected in February 2021, we present an analysis of the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 mitigation measures in three counties in Kenya. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional phone-based survey in three counties in Kenya to assess the level of disruption across seven domains: income, food insecurity, schooling, domestic tension/violence, communal violence, mental health, and decision-making. An overall disruption index was computed from the seven domains using principal component analysis. We used a linear regression model to examine the determinants of vulnerability to disruptions as measured by the index. We used concentration curves and indices to assess inequality in the disruption domains and the overall disruption index. Results: The level of disruption in income was the highest (74%), while the level of disruption for domestic tension/violence was the lowest (30%). Factors associated with increased vulnerability to the overall disruption index included: older age, being married, belonging in the lowest socio-economic tertile and receiving COVID-19 related assistance. The concentration curves showed that all the seven domains of disruption were disproportionately concentrated among households in the lowest socio-economic tertile, a finding that was supported by the concentration index of the overall disruption index (CI = - 0.022;p = 0.074). Conclusion: The COVID-19 mitigation measures resulted in unintended socio-economic effects that unfairly affected certain vulnerable groups such as those in the lowest socio-economic group and the elderly. Measures to protect households against the adverse socio-economic effects of the pandemic should be scaled up and targeted to the most vulnerable, with attention to the constantly evolving nature of the pandemic.

7.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(8)2021 Aug 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367935

ABSTRACT

The government of Kenya has launched a phased rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. A major barrier is vaccine hesitancy; the refusal or delay of accepting vaccination. This study evaluated the level and determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional study administered through a phone-based survey in February 2021 in four counties of Kenya. Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify individual perceived risks and influences, context-specific factors and vaccine-specific issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Kenya was high: 36.5%. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy included: Rural regions, perceived difficulty in adhering to government regulations on COVID-19 prevention, no perceived COVID-19 infection risk, concerns regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, and religious and cultural reasons. There is a need for the prioritization of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine confidence as part of the vaccine roll-out plan. These messaging and/or interventions should be holistic to include the value of other public health measures, be focused and targeted to specific groups, raise awareness on the risks of COVID-19 and effectively communicate the benefits and risks of vaccines.

8.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 740, 2021 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1327923

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and country measures to control it can lead to negative indirect health effects. Understanding these indirect health effects is important in informing strategies to mitigate against them. This paper presents an analysis of the indirect health effects of the pandemic in Kenya. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining the analysis of secondary quantitative data obtained from the Kenya Health Information System database (from January 2019 to November 2020) and a qualitative inquiry involving key informant interviews (n = 12) and document reviews. Quantitative data were analysed using an interrupted time series analysis (using March 2020 as the intervention period). Thematic analysis approach was employed to analyse qualitative data. RESULTS: Quantitative findings show mixed findings, with statistically significant reduction in inpatient utilization, and increase in the number of sexual violence cases per OPD visit that could be attributed to COVID-19 and its mitigation measures. Key informants reported that while financing of essential health services and domestic supply chains were not affected, international supply chains, health workforce, health infrastructure, service provision, and patient access were disrupted. However, the negative effects were thought to be transient, with mitigation measures leading to a bounce back. CONCLUSION: Finding from this study provide some insights into the effects of the pandemic and its mitigation measures in Kenya. The analysis emphasizes the value of strategies to minimize these undesired effects, and the critical role that routine health system data can play in monitoring continuity of service delivery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Kenya/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL