ABSTRACT
The aim of this scoping review was to determine the scope, objectives and methodology of contemporary published research on congenital anomalies (CAs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), to inform activities of the newly established sub-Saharan African Congenital Anomaly Network (sSCAN). MEDLINE was searched for CA-related articles published between January 2016 and June 2021. Articles were classified into four main areas (public health burden, surveillance, prevention, care) and their objectives and methodologies summarized. Of the 532 articles identified, 255 were included. The articles originated from 22 of the 49 SSA countries, with four countries contributing 60% of the articles: Nigeria (22.0%), Ethiopia (14.1%), Uganda (11.7%) and South Africa (11.7%). Only 5.5% of studies involved multiple countries within the region. Most articles included CA as their primary focus (85%), investigated a single CA (88%), focused on CA burden (56.9%) and care (54.1%), with less coverage of surveillance (3.5%) and prevention (13.3%). The most common study designs were case studies/case series (26.6%), followed by cross-sectional surveys (17.6%), retrospective record reviews (17.3%), and cohort studies (17.2%). Studies were mainly derived from single hospitals (60.4%), with only 9% being population-based studies. Most data were obtained from retrospective review of clinical records (56.1%) or via caregiver interviews (34.9%). Few papers included stillbirths (7.5%), prenatally diagnosed CAs (3.5%) or terminations of pregnancy for CA (2.4%).This first-of-a-kind-scoping review on CA in SSA demonstrated an increasing level of awareness and recognition among researchers in SSA of the contribution of CAs to under-5 mortality and morbidity in the region. The review also highlighted the need to address diagnosis, prevention, surveillance and care to meet Sustainable Development Goals 3.2 and 3.8. The SSA sub-region faces unique challenges, including fragmentation of efforts that we hope to surmount through sSCAN via a multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the 10th Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in DRC on 1st Aug 2018, several neighboring countries have been developing and implementing preparedness efforts to prevent EVD cross-border transmission to enable timely detection, investigation, and response in the event of a confirmed EVD outbreak in the country. We describe Uganda's experience in EVD preparedness. RESULTS: On 4 August 2018, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) and the National Task Force (NTF) for public health emergencies to plan, guide, and coordinate EVD preparedness in the country. The NTF selected an Incident Management Team (IMT), constituting a National Rapid Response Team (NRRT) that supported activation of the District Task Forces (DTFs) and District Rapid Response Teams (DRRTs) that jointly assessed levels of preparedness in 30 designated high-risk districts representing category 1 (20 districts) and category 2 (10 districts). The MoH, with technical guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), led EVD preparedness activities and worked together with other ministries and partner organisations to enhance community-based surveillance systems, develop and disseminate risk communication messages, engage communities, reinforce EVD screening and infection prevention measures at Points of Entry (PoEs) and in high-risk health facilities, construct and equip EVD isolation and treatment units, and establish coordination and procurement mechanisms. CONCLUSION: As of 31 May 2019, there was no confirmed case of EVD as Uganda has continued to make significant and verifiable progress in EVD preparedness. There is a need to sustain these efforts, not only in EVD preparedness but also across the entire spectrum of a multi-hazard framework. These efforts strengthen country capacity and compel the country to avail resources for preparedness and management of incidents at the source while effectively cutting costs of using a "fire-fighting" approach during public health emergencies.
