Using Population Mobility Patterns to Adapt COVID-19 Response Strategies in 3 East Africa Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic spread between neighboring countries through land, water, and air travel. Since May 2020, ministries of health for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Uganda have sought to clarify population movement patterns to improve their disease surveillance and pandemic response efforts. Ministry of Health-led teams completed focus group discussions with participatory mapping using country-adapted Population Connectivity Across Borders toolkits. They analyzed the qualitative and spatial data to prioritize locations for enhanced COVID-19 surveillance, community outreach, and cross-border collaboration. Each country employed varying toolkit strategies, but all countries applied the results to adapt their national and binational communicable disease response strategies during the pandemic, although the Democratic Republic of the Congo used only the raw data rather than generating datasets and digitized products. This 3-country comparison highlights how governments create preparedness and response strategies adapted to their unique sociocultural and cross-border dynamics to strengthen global health security.

Contributing to the debate on categorising shared sanitation facilities as 'unimproved': An account based on field researchers' observations and householders' opinions in three regions, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Health risks associated with poor sanitation behaviours continue to be reported mostly from low-income countries (LICs). Reports show that various factors limit many people from accessing and using improved latrines, forcing some to opt for sharing latrines with neighbours, others practicing open defecation. Meanwhile, debate prevails on whether shared latrines should be categorised as unimproved according to WHO/UNICEF-JMP criteria. We contribute to this debate based on results from a study undertaken in three regions, Tanzania. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected through observations in 1,751 households with latrines, coupled with collection of opinions from heads of such households regarding the latrine-sharing practices. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess associations between the outcome and possible predictor variables. RESULTS: Of all 1,751 latrines, 14.6% were shared. Among the shared latrines, 74.2% were found being generally clean as compared to 69.2% of the non-shared ones. Comparing the shared and non-shared latrines, the non-shared latrines were significantly less likely to be found with floors built with permanent materials (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.98); washable floors (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.93); and lockable doors (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.95). Shared latrines were less likely to have floors with faecal matter, functional handwashing facilities (HWFs), HWFs with running water, and roofs; albeit the differences in all these scenarios were not statistically significant. Respondents expressed desire for improved latrines, but also did not find it wrong to share latrines if cleanliness was maintained. CONCLUSION: Having an 'improved' latrine remains important as JMP recommends, but based on our study findings, we argue that possessing a non-shared latrine neither guarantees safety to its users nor its categorisation as 'improved'. Instead, the state of the latrine, the construction technology used and the behaviours of the users may be more important.