Adult mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in nine communities of Yemen: a key informant study

IntroductionWidespread armed conflict has affected Yemen since 2014. To date, the mortality toll of seven years of crisis, and any excess due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are not well quantified. We attempted to estimate population mortality during the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods in nine purposively selected urban and rural communities of southern and central Yemen (Aden and Taiz governorates), totalling > 100,000 people. MethodsWithin each study site, we collected lists of decedents between January 2014-March 2021 by interviewing different categories of key community informants, including community leaders, imams, healthcare workers, senior citizens and others. After linking records across lists based on key variables, we applied two-, three- or four-list capture-recapture analysis to estimate total death tolls. We also computed death rates by combining these estimates with population denominators, themselves subject to estimation. ResultsAfter interviewing 138 disproportionately (74.6%) male informants, we identified 2445 unique decedents. While informants recalled deaths throughout the study period, reported deaths among children were sparse: we thus restricted analysis to persons aged [≥]15 years old. We noted a peak in reported deaths during May-July 2020, plausibly coinciding with the first COVID-19 wave. Death rate estimates featured uninformatively large confidence intervals, but appeared elevated compared to the non-crisis baseline, particularly in two sites where a large proportion of deaths were attributed to war injuries. There was no clear-cut evidence of excess mortality during the pandemic period. ConclusionsWe found some evidence of a peak in mortality during the early phase of the pandemic, but death rate estimates were otherwise too imprecise to enable strong inference on trends. Estimates suggested substantial mortality elevations from baseline during the crisis period, but are subject to serious potential biases. The study highlighted challenges of data collection in this insecure, politically contested environment.

Vaccine Confidence and Hesitancy at the start of COVID-19 vaccine deployment in the UK: An embedded mixed-methods study

IntroductionApproval for the use of COVID-19 vaccines has been granted in a number of countries but there are concerns that vaccine uptake may be low amongst certain groups. MethodsThis study used a mixed methods approach based on online survey and an embedded quantitative/qualitative design to explore perceptions and attitudes that were associated with intention to either accept or refuse offers of vaccination in different demographic groups during the early stages of the UKs mass COVID-19 vaccination programme (December 2020). Analysis used multivariate logistic regression, structural text modelling and anthropological assessments. ResultsOf 4,535 respondents, 85% (n=3,859) were willing to have a COVID-19 vaccine. The rapidity of vaccine development and uncertainties about safety were common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. There was no evidence for the widespread influence of mis-information, although broader vaccine hesitancy was associated with intentions to refuse COVID-19 vaccines (OR 20.60, 95% CI 14.20-30.30, p<0.001). Low levels of trust in the decision-making (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48, p=0.021) and truthfulness (OR 8.76, 95% CI 4.15-19.90, p<0.001) of the UK government were independently associated with higher odds of refusing COVID-19 vaccines. Compared to political centrists, conservatives and liberals were respectively more (OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.51-2.80, p<0.001) and less (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.41, p<0.001) likely to refuse offered vaccines. Those who were willing to be vaccinated cited both personal and public protection as reasons, with some alluding to having a sense of collective responsibility. ConclusionDominant narratives of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy are misconceived as primarily being driven by misinformation. Key indicators of UK vaccine acceptance include prior behaviours, transparency of the scientific process of vaccine development, mistrust in science and leadership and individual political views. Vaccine programmes should leverage the sense of altruism, citizenship and collective responsibility that motivated many participants to get vaccinated.

Trust and Transparency in times of Crisis: Results from an Online Survey During the First Wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 Epidemic in the UK

BackgroundThe success of a governments COVID-19 control strategy relies on public trust and broad acceptance of response measures. We investigated public perceptions of the UK governments COVID-19 response, focusing on the relationship between trust and transparency, during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. MethodsAnonymous survey data were collected (2020-04-06 to 2020-04-22) from 9,322 respondents, aged 20+ using an online questionnaire. We took a mixed methods approach to data analysis, combining statistical analyses, structural topic modelling (STM) and qualitative thematic coding of a sub-set of responses. Missing data were imputed via multiple imputation. ResultsMost respondents (95.1%) supported government enforcement of behaviour change. While 52.1% of respondents thought the government was making good decisions, differences were apparent across demographic groups, for example respondents from Scotland had lower odds of responding positively than respondents in London. Higher educational levels saw decreasing odds of having a positive opinion of the government response and decreasing household income associated with decreasing positive opinion. Of respondents who thought the government was not making good decisions 60% believed the economy was being prioritised over people and their health. Positive views on government decision-making were associated with positive views on government transparency about the COVID-19 response. Qualitative analysis about government transparency highlighted five key themes: (1) the justification of opacity due to the condition of crisis, (2) generalised mistrust of politics, (3) concerns about the role of scientific evidence, (4) quality of government communication and (5) questions about political decision-making processes. ConclusionWe recommend targeted community engagement tailored to different groups experiences and a focus on accountability and openness around how decisions are made in the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic.