What does your partner want? Using a gender equality lens to assess partner support and involvement in family planning in Uganda.

It is unclear if there are any differences in the ways men and women perceive partner support in the context of family planning. The USAID-funded Social and Behavior Change Activity (SBCA) in Uganda explored male versus female priorities in the decision-making considerations and preferred measures of partner support related to family planning. Data were from a cross -sectional nationally representative telephone survey of 1177 men and women aged 18-49 years old in sexual partnerships. Key measures included current family planning use (Are you or your partner currently doing anything to prevent or delay becoming pregnant?); family planning decision-making considerations (In your experience, which of the following are the three most important considerations as you make family planning decisions?); and preferred partner support (What level of involvement would you like to see from your partner in your family planning decisions?). Multivariable logistic regressions explored factors associated with decision-making priorities and preferred partner support, adjusting for sociodemographic confounders. Two-thirds (66%) of men and women wanted a high level of involvement from their partner, which was associated with higher odds of using family planning (aOR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.87-3.24). Specific ways partners could be involved included accompanying them to health services (39%), permitting them to get family planning services (26%), and jointly discussing family planning options (23%). Of note, more women wanted their partner to accompany them (45%) than men (33%) while more men (29%) wanted to jointly discuss options than women (15%). Social and behavior change interventions should operationalize partner support differently for men and women. Study findings were used to implement a health campaign that explicitly encouraged partner dialogue and support across the various life stages; empowering women with knowledge and skills to have honest conversations with their partners about birth spacing and timing.

Public perceptions of Ebola vaccines and confidence in health services to treat Ebola, malaria, and tuberculosis: Findings from a cross-sectional household survey in Uganda, 2020.

Uganda used Ebola vaccines as part of its preparedness and response during the 2018-2020 10th Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We evaluated the public's perceptions of Ebola vaccines and compared their confidence in health services to treat Ebola versus malaria and tuberculosis as part of a survey on Ebola knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) conducted in March 2020. A cross-sectional household survey was implemented in six districts in Uganda using multi-stage cluster sampling to randomly select participants. The districts were purposively selected from districts classified by the government as at high- or low-risk for an EVD outbreak. We describe perceptions of Ebola vaccines and confidence in health services to treat Ebola, tuberculosis, and malaria. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to identify the demographic correlates of these outcomes. Among 3,485 respondents, 18% were aware of Ebola vaccines. Of those, 92% agreed that the vaccines were needed to prevent Ebola. Participants aged 15-24 years were 4% more likely to perceive such need compared to those 60 years and older (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.08). The perceived need was 5% lower among participants with at least some secondary education compared to uneducated participants (aPR 0.95; 0.92-0.99). Overall, 81% of those aware of the vaccines believed that everyone or most people in their community would get vaccinated if offered, and 94% said they would likely get vaccinated if offered. Confidence in health services to treat Ebola was lower compared to treating malaria or tuberculosis (55% versus 93% and 77%, respectively). However, participants from the EVD high-risk districts were 22% more likely to be confident in health services to treat Ebola compared to those in low-risk districts (aPR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.38). Our findings suggest that intent to take an Ebola vaccine during an outbreak was strong, but more work needs to be done to increase public awareness of these vaccines. The public's high confidence in health services to treat other health threats, such as malaria and tuberculosis, offer building blocks for strengthening their confidence in health services to treat EVD in the event of an outbreak.

Evaluation of Community Perceptions and Prevention Practices Related to Ebola Virus as Part of Outbreak Preparedness in Uganda, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: During the 2018-2020 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) were prioritized in geographic areas in Uganda considered at high risk of introduction of EVD. To inform EVD preparedness in Uganda, we evaluated community perceptions and prevention practices related to EVD in 6 districts in Uganda. METHODS: In March 2020, we conducted a population-based survey in 6 purposively selected districts in Uganda using multistage cluster sampling. We examined differences between districts classified as high- versus low risk for EVD in terms of their message exposure from RCCE; risk perception; and EVD knowledge, attitudes, and prevention practices. RESULTS: A total of 3,485 respondents were interviewed (91% response rate). EVD message exposure was more common in the high- versus low-risk districts. EVD risk perceptions were low overall but greater in the high- versus low-risk districts. Comprehensive knowledge was significantly greater in the high- versus low-risk districts (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.35, 1.93). Respondents' engagement in all 3 EVD prevention practices (frequent handwashing with soap, avoiding physical contact with suspected Ebola patients, and avoiding burials involving contact with a corpse) was very low (4%). However, respondents with comprehensive knowledge were more likely to engage in all 3 EVD prevention practices compared to respondents without comprehensive knowledge (aPR 1.87, 95% CI=1.08, 3.25). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that while RCCE efforts as part of EVD outbreak preparedness may have contributed to higher EVD knowledge in the targeted high-risk districts, uptake of prevention behaviors was similarly low across districts. In a non-outbreak setting, implementing targeted RCCE strategies may not be sufficient to motivate people to adopt protective behaviors in the absence of a high threshold of perceived threat such as in an active outbreak.

Intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 prior to the second wave of the pandemic in Uganda: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The resurgence in cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in many countries suggests complacency in adhering to COVID-19 preventive guidelines. Vaccination, therefore, remains a key intervention in mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study investigated the level of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among Ugandans. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of 1053 Ugandan adults was conducted in March 2021 using telephone interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants reported on adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and intention to be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Overall, 10.2% of the respondents adhered to the COVID-19 preventive guidelines and 57.8% stated definite intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Compared with women, men were less likely to adhere to COVID-19 guidelines (Odds Ratio (OR)=0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99). Participants from the northern (4.0%, OR=0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.92), western (5.1%, OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65) and eastern regions (6.5%, OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92), respectively, had lower odds of adhering to the COVID-19 guidelines than those from the central region (14.7%). A higher monthly income of ≥US$137 (OR=2.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.58) and a history of chronic disease (OR=1.81, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.86) were predictors of adherence. Concerns about the chances of getting COVID-19 in the future (Prevalence Ratio (PR)=1.26, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48) and fear of severe COVID-19 infection (PR=1.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.38) were the strongest predictors for a definite intention, while concerns for side effects were negatively associated with vaccination intent (PR=0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.83). CONCLUSION: Behaviour change programmes need to be strengthened to promote adherence to COVID-19 preventive guidelines as vaccination is rolled out as another preventive measure. Dissemination of accurate, safe and efficacious information about the vaccines is necessary to enhance vaccine uptake.