COVID-19 and the law in Uganda: a case study on development and application of the public health act from 2020 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Despite the discovery of vaccines, the control, and prevention of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relied on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). This article describes the development and application of the Public Health Act to implement NPIs for COVID-19 pandemic control in Uganda. METHODS: This is a case study of Uganda's experience with enacting COVID-19 Rules under the Public Health Act Cap. 281. The study assessed how and what Rules were developed, their influence on the outbreak progress, and litigation. The data sources reviewed were applicable laws and policies, Presidential speeches, Cabinet resolutions, statutory instruments, COVID-19 situation reports, and the registry of court cases that contributed to a triangulated analysis. RESULTS: Uganda applied four COVID-19 broad Rules for the period March 2020 to October 2021. The Minister of Health enacted the Rules, which response teams, enforcement agencies, and the general population followed. The Presidential speeches, their expiry period and progress of the pandemic curve led to amendment of the Rules twenty one (21) times. The Uganda Peoples Defense Forces Act No. 7 of 2005, the Public Finance Management Act No. 3 of 2015, and the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management supplemented the enacted COVID-19 Rules. However, these Rules attracted specific litigation due to perceived infringement on certain human rights provisions. CONCLUSIONS: Countries can enact supportive legislation within the course of an outbreak. The balance of enforcing public health interventions and human rights infringements is an important consideration in future. We recommend public sensitization about legislative provisions and reforms to guide public health responses in future outbreaks or pandemics.

Interventions to increase youth employment: An evidence and gap map

Background Globally, 13% of the youth are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Moreover, this persistent problem has been exacerbated by the shock of Covid‐19 pandemic. More youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely unemployed than those from better off backgrounds. Thus, the need for increased use of evidence in the design and implementation of youth employment interventions to increase effectiveness and sustainability of interventions and outcomes. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) can promote evidence‐based decision making by guiding policy makers, development partners and researchers to areas with good bodies of evidence and those with little or no evidence. The scope of the Youth Employment EGM is global. The map covers all youth aged 15–35 years. The three broad intervention categories included in the EGM are: strengthening training and education systems, enhancing labour market and, transforming financial sector markets. There are five outcome categories: education and skills;entrepreneurship;employment;welfare and economic outcomes. The EGM contains impact evaluations of interventions implemented to increase youth employment and systematic reviews of such single studies, published or made available between 2000 and 2019. Objectives The primary objective was to catalogue impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment interventions to improve discoverability of evidence by decision makers, development patterners and researchers, so as to promote evidence‐based decision making in programming and implementation of youth employment initiatives. Search Methods Twenty databases and websites were searched using a validated search strategy. Additional searches included searching within 21 systematic reviews, snowballing 20 most recent studies and citation tracking of 10 most recent studies included in the EGM. Selection Criteria The study selection criteria followed the PICOS approach of population, intervention, relevant comparison groups, outcomes and study design. Additional criterion is;study publication or availability period of between 2000 and 2021. Only impact evaluations and systematic reviews that included impact evaluations were selected. Data Collection and Analysis A total of 14,511 studies were uploaded in EPPI Reviewer 4 software, upon which 399 were selected using the criteria provided above. Coding of data took place in EPPI Reviewer basing on predefined codes. The unit of analysis for the report is individual studies where every entry represents a combination of interventions and outcomes. Main Results Overall, 399 studies (21 systematic reviews and 378 impact evaluations) are included in the EGM. Impact evaluations (n = 378) are much more than the systematic reviews (n = 21). Most impact evaluations are experimental studies (n = 177), followed by non‐experimental matching (n = 167) and other regression designs (n = 35). Experimental studies were mostly conducted in both Lower‐income countries and Lower Middle Income countries while non‐experimental study designs are the most common in both High Income and Upper Middle Income countries. Most evidence is from low quality impact evaluations (71.2%) while majority of systematic reviews (71.4% of 21) are of medium and high quality rating. The area saturated with most evidence is the intervention category of ‘training', while the underrepresented are three main intervention sub‐categories: information services;decent work policies and;entrepreneurship promotion and financing. Older youth, youth in fragility, conflict and violence contexts, or humanitarian settings, or ethnic minorities or those with criminal backgrounds are least studied. Conclusions The Youth Employment EGM identifies trends in evidence notably the following: Most evidence is from high‐income countries, an indication of the relationship between a country's income status and research productivity. The most common study designs are experiment l. Most of the evidence is of low quality. This finding serves to alert researchers, practitioners and policy makers that more rigorous work is needed to inform youth employment interventions. Blending of interventions is practiced. While this could be an indication that blended intervention could be offering better outcomes, this remains an area with a research gap.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Interventions to increase youth employment: An evidence and gap map.

Background: Globally, 13% of the youth are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Moreover, this persistent problem has been exacerbated by the shock of Covid-19 pandemic. More youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely unemployed than those from better off backgrounds. Thus, the need for increased use of evidence in the design and implementation of youth employment interventions to increase effectiveness and sustainability of interventions and outcomes. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) can promote evidence-based decision making by guiding policy makers, development partners and researchers to areas with good bodies of evidence and those with little or no evidence. The scope of the Youth Employment EGM is global. The map covers all youth aged 15-35 years. The three broad intervention categories included in the EGM are: strengthening training and education systems, enhancing labour market and, transforming financial sector markets. There are five outcome categories: education and skills; entrepreneurship; employment; welfare and economic outcomes. The EGM contains impact evaluations of interventions implemented to increase youth employment and systematic reviews of such single studies, published or made available between 2000 and 2019. Objectives: The primary objective was to catalogue impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment interventions to improve discoverability of evidence by decision makers, development patterners and researchers, so as to promote evidence-based decision making in programming and implementation of youth employment initiatives. Search Methods: Twenty databases and websites were searched using a validated search strategy. Additional searches included searching within 21 systematic reviews, snowballing 20 most recent studies and citation tracking of 10 most recent studies included in the EGM. Selection Criteria: The study selection criteria followed the PICOS approach of population, intervention, relevant comparison groups, outcomes and study design. Additional criterion is; study publication or availability period of between 2000 and 2021. Only impact evaluations and systematic reviews that included impact evaluations were selected. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 14,511 studies were uploaded in EPPI Reviewer 4 software, upon which 399 were selected using the criteria provided above. Coding of data took place in EPPI Reviewer basing on predefined codes. The unit of analysis for the report is individual studies where every entry represents a combination of interventions and outcomes. Main Results: Overall, 399 studies (21 systematic reviews and 378 impact evaluations) are included in the EGM. Impact evaluations (n = 378) are much more than the systematic reviews (n = 21). Most impact evaluations are experimental studies (n = 177), followed by non-experimental matching (n = 167) and other regression designs (n = 35). Experimental studies were mostly conducted in both Lower-income countries and Lower Middle Income countries while non-experimental study designs are the most common in both High Income and Upper Middle Income countries. Most evidence is from low quality impact evaluations (71.2%) while majority of systematic reviews (71.4% of 21) are of medium and high quality rating. The area saturated with most evidence is the intervention category of 'training', while the underrepresented are three main intervention sub-categories: information services; decent work policies and; entrepreneurship promotion and financing. Older youth, youth in fragility, conflict and violence contexts, or humanitarian settings, or ethnic minorities or those with criminal backgrounds are least studied. Conclusions: The Youth Employment EGM identifies trends in evidence notably the following: Most evidence is from high-income countries, an indication of the relationship between a country's income status and research productivity.The most common study designs are experimental.Most of the evidence is of low quality. This finding serves to alert researchers, practitioners and policy makers that more rigorous work is needed to inform youth employment interventions. Blending of interventions is practiced. While this could be an indication that blended intervention could be offering better outcomes, this remains an area with a research gap.

Role and utility of COVID-19 laboratory testing in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for rapid evidence synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate and affordable laboratory testing is key to timely diagnosis and appropriate management of patients with COVID-19. New laboratory test protocols are released into the market under emergency use authorisation with limited evidence on diagnostic test accuracy. As such, robust evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and the costs of available tests is urgently needed to inform policy and practice especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to determine the diagnostic test accuracy, cost-effectiveness and utility of laboratory test strategies for COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a multistaged, protocol-driven systematic review conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. We will search for relevant literature in at least six public health databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the WHO Global Index Medicus. In addition, we will search Cochrane Library, COVID-END and grey literature databases to identify additional relevant articles before double-screening and abstraction of data. We will conduct a structured narrative and quantitative synthesis of the results guided by the Fryback and Thornbury framework for assessing a diagnostic test. The primary outcome is COVID-19 diagnostic test accuracy. Using the GRADE approach specific to diagnostic accuracy tests, we will appraise the overall quality of evidence and report the results following the original PRISMA statement. The protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review was done by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The published article will be accessible to policy and decision makers. The findings of this review will guide clinical practice and policy decisions and highlight areas for future research.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020209528.