Perceived impacts of COVID-19 responses on routine health service delivery in Liberia and UK: cross-country lessons for resilient health systems for equitable service delivery during pandemics.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused significant public health problems globally, with catastrophic impacts on health systems. This study explored the adaptations to health services in Liberia and Merseyside UK at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (January-May 2020) and their perceived impact on routine service delivery. During this period, transmission routes and treatment pathways were as yet unknown, public fear and health care worker fear was high and death rates among vulnerable hospitalised patients were high. We aimed to identify cross-context lessons for building more resilient health systems during a pandemic response. METHODS: The study employed a cross-sectional qualitative design with a collective case study approach involving simultaneous comparison of COVID-19 response experiences in Liberia and Merseyside. Between June and September 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 66 health system actors purposively selected across different levels of the health system. Participants included national and county decision-makers in Liberia, frontline health workers and regional and hospital decision-makers in Merseyside UK. Data were analysed thematically in NVivo 12 software. RESULTS: There were mixed impacts on routine services in both settings. Major adverse impacts included diminished availability and utilisation of critical health services for socially vulnerable populations, linked with reallocation of health service resources for COVID-19 care, and use of virtual medical consultation in Merseyside. Routine service delivery during the pandemic was hampered by a lack of clear communication, centralised planning, and limited local autonomy. Across both settings, cross-sectoral collaboration, community-based service delivery, virtual consultations, community engagement, culturally sensitive messaging, and local autonomy in response planning facilitated delivery of essential services. CONCLUSION: Our findings can inform response planning to assure optimal delivery of essential routine health services during the early phases of public health emergencies. Pandemic responses should prioritise early preparedness, with investment in the health systems building blocks including staff training and PPE stocks, address both pre-existing and pandemic-related structural barriers to care, inclusive and participatory decision-making, strong community engagement, and effective and sensitive communication. Multisectoral collaboration and inclusive leadership are essential.

COVID-19 risk, attitudes and behaviour study (CRAB study): A knowledge, attitudes, and practise qualitative study of COVID-19 in the Royal Navy.

Introduction: Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 onboard maritime platforms spread rapidly and have high attack rates. The aim of the COVID-19 Risk, Attitudes and Behaviour (CRAB) study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practises in the Royal Navy in relation to COVID-19 prevention. Methods: The CRAB study was a cross-sectional survey, using a census sampling method, conducted in May and June 2021. An online questionnaire was distributed to all serving Royal Navy regular personnel using either the MyNavy application or via a QR code through email for a continuous 14 day period. The questionnaire was based on an existing validated questionnaire used for avian influenza epidemics. Questions investigated individual perceptions of COVID-19 seriousness, compliance with prevention methods, explored vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy (unvaccinated individuals who declined or were unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine). The chi-squared test of best fit was used to compare the demographic responses against the whole organisation, with p-value < 0.05 deemed significant. Odds ratios were used to investigate associations between demographic groups and responses to questions, with an odds ratio crossing 1.0 deemed non-significant. Results: The response rate was 6% (2,080/33,200), with 315 responses collated in the pilot phase and 1,765 in the main study phase. Male participants were less likely to rate COVID-19 as serious (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.23-0.49). BAME ethnicity (OR 2.41; 95% CI: 1.12-5.17) rated it as more serious. At the time of the study 62% of respondents had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the 797 unvaccinated personnel, vaccine hesitancy accounted for 24.2% (193/797), of whom 136 were white males. Those who had a higher COVID-19 serious rating, the most significant factor for non-adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures in both vaccinated (OR 1.61 [95%CI: 1.20-2.17]) and vaccine-hesitant (OR 3.24 [95%CI: 1.63-6.41]) individuals was colleagues' non-adherence. The most trusted source of information on vaccines was provided by the Defence Medical Services (77.2% [1,606/2,080]). Conclusion: This study has identified reasons for COVID-19 protective measure adherence, sources of information trusted by respondents and vaccine hesitancy, in the Royal Navy. The questionnaire can be used to investigate attitudes and behaviours in future emerging infectious diseases.

COVID-19 risk, attitudes and behaviour study (CRAB study): A knowledge, attitudes, and practise qualitative study of COVID-19 in the Royal Navy

Introduction Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 onboard maritime platforms spread rapidly and have high attack rates. The aim of the COVID-19 Risk, Attitudes and Behaviour (CRAB) study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practises in the Royal Navy in relation to COVID-19 prevention. Methods The CRAB study was a cross-sectional survey, using a census sampling method, conducted in May and June 2021. An online questionnaire was distributed to all serving Royal Navy regular personnel using either the MyNavy application or via a QR code through email for a continuous 14 day period. The questionnaire was based on an existing validated questionnaire used for avian influenza epidemics. Questions investigated individual perceptions of COVID-19 seriousness, compliance with prevention methods, explored vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy (unvaccinated individuals who declined or were unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine). The chi-squared test of best fit was used to compare the demographic responses against the whole organisation, with p-value < 0.05 deemed significant. Odds ratios were used to investigate associations between demographic groups and responses to questions, with an odds ratio crossing 1.0 deemed non-significant. Results The response rate was 6% (2,080/33,200), with 315 responses collated in the pilot phase and 1,765 in the main study phase. Male participants were less likely to rate COVID-19 as serious (OR 0.34;95% CI: 0.23–0.49). BAME ethnicity (OR 2.41;95% CI: 1.12–5.17) rated it as more serious. At the time of the study 62% of respondents had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the 797 unvaccinated personnel, vaccine hesitancy accounted for 24.2% (193/797), of whom 136 were white males. Those who had a higher COVID-19 serious rating, the most significant factor for non-adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures in both vaccinated (OR 1.61 [95%CI: 1.20–2.17]) and vaccine-hesitant (OR 3.24 [95%CI: 1.63–6.41]) individuals was colleagues' non-adherence. The most trusted source of information on vaccines was provided by the Defence Medical Services (77.2% [1,606/2,080]). Conclusion This study has identified reasons for COVID-19 protective measure adherence, sources of information trusted by respondents and vaccine hesitancy, in the Royal Navy. The questionnaire can be used to investigate attitudes and behaviours in future emerging infectious diseases.

What are the barriers to the diagnosis and management of chronic respiratory disease in sub-Saharan Africa? A qualitative study with healthcare workers, national and regional policy stakeholders in five countries.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) are among the top four non-communicable diseases globally. They are associated with poor health and approximately 4 million deaths every year. The rising burden of CRD in low/middle-income countries will strain already weak health systems. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of healthcare workers and other health policy stakeholders on the barriers to effective diagnosis and management of CRD in Kenya, Malawi, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTINGS: Primary, secondary and tertiary health facilities, government agencies and civil society organisations in five sub-Saharan African countries. PARTICIPANTS: We purposively selected 60 national and district-level policy stakeholders, and 49 healthcare workers, based on their roles in policy decision-making or health provision, and conducted key informant interviews and in-depth interviews, respectively, between 2018 and 2019. Data were analysed through framework approach. RESULTS: We identified intersecting vicious cycles of neglect of CRD at strategic policy and healthcare facility levels. Lack of reliable data on burden of disease, due to weak information systems and diagnostic capacity, negatively affected inclusion in policy; this, in turn, was reflected by low budgetary allocations for diagnostic equipment, training and medicines. At the healthcare facility level, inadequate budgetary allocations constrained diagnostic capacity, quality of service delivery and collection of appropriate data, compounding the lack of routine data on burden of disease. CONCLUSION: Health systems in the five countries are ill-equipped to respond to CRD, an issue that has been brought into sharp focus as countries plan for post-COVID-19 lung diseases. CRD are underdiagnosed, under-reported and underfunded, leading to a vicious cycle of invisibility and neglect. Appropriate diagnosis and management require health systems strengthening, particularly at the primary healthcare level.

Qualitative study exploring lessons from Liberia and the UK for building a people-centred resilient health systems response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has tested the resilience of health systems globally and exposed existing strengths and weaknesses. We sought to understand health systems COVID-19 adaptations and decision making in Liberia and Merseyside, UK. METHODS: We used a people-centred approach to carry out qualitative interviews with 24 health decision-makers at national and county level in Liberia and 42 actors at county and hospital level in the UK (Merseyside). We explored health systems' decision-making processes and capacity to adapt and continue essential service delivery in response to COVID-19 in both contexts. RESULTS: Study respondents in Liberia and Merseyside had similar experiences in responding to COVID-19, despite significant differences in health systems context, and there is an opportunity for multidirectional learning between the global south and north. The need for early preparedness; strong community engagement; clear communication within the health system and health service delivery adaptations for essential health services emerged strongly in both settings. We found the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) principles to have value as a framework for reviewing health systems changes, across settings, in response to a shock such as a pandemic. In addition to the eight original principles, we expanded to include two additional principles: (1) the need for functional structures and mechanisms for preparation and (2) adaptable governance and leadership structures to facilitate timely decision making and response coordination. We find the use of a people-centred approach also has value to prompt policy-makers to consider the acceptance of service adaptations by patients and health workers, and to continue the provision of 'routine services' for individuals during health systems shocks. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of a people-centred approach, placing the person at the centre of the health system, and value in applying and adapting the FCDO principles across diverse settings.

Gastrointestinal symptoms involvement in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Liverpool, UK: a descriptive cross-sectional, single-centre study

Introduction Since December 2019, COVID-19 has caused huge global morbidity and mortality.1 Although the disease is primarily a respiratory illness, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are increasingly recognised.2 However, reported literature on the prevalence of these symptoms is conflicting, as is their relationship with disease course and outcome.3,4 We aimed to identify the prevalence of GI symptoms among a cohort of UK hospitalised adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and to describe the association of GI symptoms with patient characteristics, clinical course and outcome. Patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have a BMI of >25 on univariate analysis (odds ratio (OR) 1.6;95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-2.5;p = 0.04). The mortality rate of the cohort was 37.2% with no statistically significant difference between the symptom groups in multivariate analysis.