Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen NCD care and policy in humanitarian settings: a mixed methods study exploring humanitarian actors’ experiences. (preprint)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and response severely impacted people living with non-communicable diseases (PLWNCDs) globally. It exacerbated pre-existing health inequalities, severely disrupted access to care, and worsened clinical outcomes for PLWNCDs, who were at higher risk of morbidity and mortality from the virus. The pandemic’s effects were likely magnified in humanitarian settings, where there were pre-existing gaps in continuity of care for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). We sought to explore factors affecting implementation of NCD care in crises settings during the COVID-19 pandemic and the adaptations made to support implementation.Methods Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we undertook an online survey of 98 humanitarian actors from multiple regions and organization types (March-July 2021), followed by in-depth interviews with 13 purposively selected survey respondents (October-December, 2021). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics, while interview data were analysed both deductively and inductively.Results Initially, humanitarian actors faced challenges influenced by external actors’ priorities, such as deprioritisation of NCD care by governments, travel restrictions and supply chain interruptions. With each infection wave and lockdown, humanitarian actors were better able to adapt and maintain NCD services. The availability of COVID-19 vaccines was a positive turning point, especially for the risk management of people with NCDs and protection of health workers. Key findings include that, despite pre-existing challenges, humanitarian actors largely continued NCD services during the crisis. Enabling factors that supported continuity of NCD services included the ability to quickly pivot to remote means of communication with PLWNCDs, flexibility in medicine dispensing, and successful advocacy to prioritize NCD management within health systems. Key lessons learned included the importance of partnerships and cooperation with other health actors and the mobilisation or repurposing of community health workers/volunteer networks.Conclusions The COVID-19 experience should prompt national and global health stakeholders to strengthen inclusion of NCDs in emergency preparedness, response, and resilience planning, building on lessons learned around remote care provision adapted to PLWNCDs severity, integrating community health workers, providing context-adapted PLWNCDs information and combating misinformation and strengthening cross-sectoral partnerships.

Shielding individuals at high risk of COVID-19: A micro-simulation study

Background: One proposed intervention for mitigating COVID-19 epidemics, particularly in low-income and crisis-affected settings, is to physically isolate individuals at high risk of severe disease and death. This intervention, known as ‘shielding', could be implemented in various ways. If shielding is imperfect, any introduction of infections within the shielding group could cause substantial mortality and negate the intervention's benefits. We explored the effectiveness of shielding under various modalities of implementation and considered mitigation measures to reduce possible harms. Methods: : We used an individual-based model to simulate a COVID-19 epidemic in a population where a fraction above a given age are relocated to shielding residences. We set our simulation with the context of an internally displaced persons' camp in Somaliland, for which we had previously collected data on demographics and social mixing patterns. We compared an unmitigated epidemic with a shielding intervention accompanied by various risk-mitigating measures. We explored the impact of parameters such as residence size, reduction in contacts, basic reproduction number, and prior immunity in the population. Results: : Shielded residences are likely to be breached with infection during the outbreak. Nonetheless, shielding can be effective in preventing COVID-19 infections in the shielded population. The effectiveness of shielding is mostly affected by the size of the shielded residence, and by the degree by which contacts with the outside world are reduced. Reductions in contacts between shielded individuals are only effective in larger shielded residences. In epidemics with a lower reproduction number, the effectiveness of shielding could be negative. Conclusions: : Shielding could be an effective method to protect the most at-risk individuals. It should be considered where other measures cannot easily be implemented, but with attention to the epidemiological situation. Shielding should only be implemented through small to medium-sized shielding residences, with appropriate mitigation measures to prevent subsequent spread.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Remote Delivery Strategies for Non-Communicable Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health care for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and necessitated strategies to minimize contact with facilities. We aimed to examine factors influencing implementation of remote (non-facility-based) delivery approaches for people with hypertension and/or diabetes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to inform NCD care delivery during health service disruption, including humanitarian crises. Methods: Our narrative review used a hermeneutic and purposive approach, including primary studies conducted in LMICs, which assessed implementation factors influencing remote NCD care delivery. Results were analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Twenty-eight included studies revealed the strong influence of both internal organizational and broader contextual factors, such as community health worker policies or technological environment. Addressing patients' specific characteristics, needs and resources was important for implementation success. Conclusion: This review highlighted the multiple, complex, interdependent factors influencing implementation of remote NCD care in LMICs. Our findings may inform actors designing NCD care delivery in contexts where facility-based access is challenging. Implementation research is needed to evaluate context-adapted e-Health, community-based, and simplified clinical management strategies to facilitate remote NCD care.

Country differences in transmissibility, age distribution and case-fatality of SARS-CoV-2: a global ecological analysis.

Objectives The first COVID-19 pandemic waves in many low-income countries appeared milder than initially forecasted. We conducted a country-level ecological study to describe patterns in key SARS-CoV-2 outcomes by country and region and explore associations with potential explanatory factors, including population age structure and prior exposure to endemic parasitic infections. Methods We collected publicly available data and compared them using standardisation techniques. We then explored the association between exposures and outcomes using random forest and linear regression. We adjusted for potential confounders and plausible effect modifications. Results While mean time-varying reproduction number was highest in the European and Americas regions, median age of death was lower in the Africa region, with a broadly similar case-fatality ratio. Population age was strongly associated with mean (ß=0.01, 95% CI, 0.005, 0.011) and median age of cases (ß=-0.40, 95% CI, -0.53, -0.26) and deaths (ß= 0.40, 95% CI, 0.17, 0.62). Conclusions Population age seems an important country-level factor explaining both transmissibility and age distribution of observed cases and deaths. Endemic infections seem unlikely, from this analysis, to be key drivers of the variation in observed epidemic trends. Our study was limited by the availability of outcome data and its causally uncertain ecological design.

Considerations for planning COVID-19 treatment services in humanitarian responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to cause high morbidity and mortality in crisis-affected populations. Delivering COVID-19 treatment services in crisis settings will likely entail complex trade-offs between offering services of clinical benefit and minimising risks of nosocomial infection, while allocating resources appropriately and safeguarding other essential services. This paper outlines considerations for humanitarian actors planning COVID-19 treatment services where vaccination is not yet widely available. We suggest key decision-making considerations: allocation of resources to COVID-19 treatment services and the design of clinical services should be based on community preferences, likely opportunity costs, and a clearly articulated package of care across different health system levels. Moreover, appropriate service planning requires information on the expected COVID-19 burden and the resilience of the health system. We explore COVID-19 treatment service options at the patient level (diagnosis, management, location and level of treatment) and measures to reduce nosocomial transmission (cohorting patients, protecting healthcare workers). Lastly, we propose key indicators for monitoring COVID-19 health services.

COVID-19 in humanitarian settings: documenting and sharing context-specific programmatic experiences.

Humanitarian organizations have developed innovative and context specific interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as guidance has been normative in nature and most are not humanitarian specific. In April 2020, three universities developed a COVID-19 humanitarian-specific website ( www.covid19humanitarian.com ) to allow humanitarians from the field to upload their experiences or be interviewed by academics to share their creative responses adapted to their specific country challenges in a standardised manner. These field experiences are reviewed by the three universities together with various guidance documents and uploaded to the website using an operational framework. The website currently hosts 135 guidance documents developed by 65 different organizations, and 65 field experiences shared by 29 organizations from 27 countries covering 38 thematic areas. Examples of challenges and innovative solutions from humanitarian settings are provided for triage and sexual and gender-based violence. Offering open access resources on a neutral platform by academics can provide a space for constructive dialogue among humanitarians at the country, regional and global levels, allowing humanitarian actors at the country level to have a strong and central voice. We believe that this neutral and openly accessible platform can serve as an example for future large-scale emergencies and epidemics.

COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?

COVID-19 prevention strategies in resource limited settings, modelled on the earlier response in high income countries, have thus far focused on draconian containment strategies, which impose movement restrictions on a wide scale. These restrictions are unlikely to prevent cases from surging well beyond existing hospitalisation capacity; not withstanding their likely severe social and economic costs in the long term. We suggest that in low-income countries, time limited movement restrictions should be considered primarily as an opportunity to develop sustainable and resource appropriate mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies, if focused on reducing COVID-19 transmission through a triad of prevention activities, have the potential to mitigate bed demand and mortality by a considerable extent. This triade is based on a combination of high-uptake of community led shielding of high-risk individuals, self-isolation of mild to moderately symptomatic cases, and moderate physical distancing in the community. We outline a set of principles for communities to consider how to support the protection of the most vulnerable, by shielding them from infection within and outside their homes. We further suggest three potential shielding options, with their likely applicability to different settings, for communities to consider and that would enable them to provide access to transmission-shielded arrangements for the highest risk community members. Importantly, any shielding strategy would need to be predicated on sound, locally informed behavioural science and monitored for effectiveness and evaluating its potential under realistic modelling assumptions. Perhaps, most importantly, it is essential that these strategies not be perceived as oppressive measures and be community led in their design and implementation. This is in order that they can be sustained for an extended period of time, until COVID-19 can be controlled or vaccine and treatment options become available.