Malaria vaccine efficacy, safety, and community perception in Africa: a scoping review of recent empirical studies.

AIM: The review summarizes the recent empirical evidence on the efficacy, safety, and community perception of malaria vaccines in Africa. METHODS: Academic Search Complete, African Journals Online, CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and two gray literature sources were searched in January 2023, and updated in June 2023. Relevant studies published from 2012 were included. Studies were screened, appraised, and synthesized in line with the review aim. Statistical results are presented as 95% Confidence Intervals and proportions/percentages. RESULTS: Sixty-six (N = 66) studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the vaccines identified, overall efficacy at 12 months was highest for the R21 vaccine (N = 3) at 77.0%, compared to the RTS,S vaccine (N = 15) at 55%. The efficacy of other vaccines was BK-SE36 (11.0-50.0%, N = 1), ChAd63/MVA ME-TRAP (- 4.7-19.4%, N = 2), FMP2.1/AS02A (7.6-9.9%, N = 1), GMZ2 (0.6-60.0%, N = 5), PfPZ (20.0-100.0%, N = 5), and PfSPZ-CVac (24.8-33.6%, N = 1). Injection site pain and fever were the most common adverse events (N = 26), while febrile convulsion (N = 8) was the most reported, vaccine-related Serious Adverse Event. Mixed perceptions of malaria vaccines were found in African communities (N = 17); awareness was generally low, ranging from 11% in Tanzania to 60% in Nigeria (N = 9), compared to willingness to accept the vaccines, which varied from 32.3% in Ethiopia to 96% in Sierra Leone (N = 15). Other issues include availability, logistics, and misconceptions. CONCLUSION: Malaria vaccines protect against malaria infection in varying degrees, with severe side effects rarely occurring. Further research is required to improve vaccine efficacy and community involvement is needed to ensure successful widespread use in African communities.

Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Among the General Population in Africa During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Medical and socio-economic uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have had a substantial impact on mental health. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature reporting the prevalence of anxiety and depression among the general populace in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine associated risk factors. Methods: A systematic search of the following databases African Journal Online, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception until 30th September 2021. Studies reporting the prevalence of anxiety and/or depression among the general populace in African settings were considered for inclusion. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Meta-analyses on prevalence rates were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Results: Seventy-eight primary studies (62,380 participants) were identified from 2,325 studies via electronic and manual searches. Pooled prevalence rates for anxiety (47%, 95% CI: 40-54%, I2 = 99.19%) and depression (48%, 95% CI: 39-57%, I2 = 99.45%) were reported across Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sex (female) and history of existing medical/chronic conditions were identified as major risk factors for anxiety and depression. Conclusions: The evidence put forth in this synthesis demonstrates the substantial impact of the pandemic on the pervasiveness of these psychological symptoms among the general population. Governments and stakeholders across continental Africa should therefore prioritize the allocation of available resources to institute educational programs and other intervention strategies for preventing and ameliorating universal distress and promoting psychological wellbeing. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021228023, PROSPERO CRD42021228023.

COVID-19 pandemic-related mortality, infection, symptoms, complications, comorbidities, and other aspects of physical health among healthcare workers globally: An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause unprecedented concern across the globe since the beginning of the outbreak. Healthcare workers, particularly those working on the front line, remain one of the most affected groups. Various studies have investigated different aspects of the physical health of healthcare workers; however, limited evidence on the overall physical health of healthcare workers has been collectively examined. AIM: To examine the various aspects of physical health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An umbrella review. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE and supplemented the search with Google Scholar. Key terms related to 'COVID-19', 'physical health', 'healthcare worker' and 'systematic review' were used in the search. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses were included if they were published in the English language, could be obtained in full-text format, and assessed the physical health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers were included. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the 'Synthesis Without Meta-analysis' guideline. RESULTS: Thirteen systematic reviews (represented as K = 13) that synthesized data from 1230 primary studies/reports and 1,040,336 participants met the inclusion criteria. The findings indicate a death rate of between 0.3 and 54.2 per 100 infections (K = 4). The overall case-fatality rate was estimated to be 0.87% (approximately 9 deaths per 1000 infections, K = 3). The overall infection rate among healthcare workers ranged from 3.9% to 11% (K = 5), with the highest rate associated with healthcare workers involved in screening. Considering geographic regions, the highest number of infections was reported in Europe (78.2% of 152,888 infected healthcare workers, K = 1). More nurses and female healthcare workers were infected, while deaths occurred mainly among men and medical doctors. The commonly reported symptoms included cough (56-80%, K = 3), fever (57-85%, K = 3), and headache (7-81%, K = 3), while hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (7%, K = 1). Additionally, a high prevalence of poor sleep quality (41-43%, K = 2), work-related stress (33-44.86%, K = 5) and personal protective equipment-associated skin injuries (48.2-97%, K = 2) affected the healthcare workers. The most reported preventive measures included laboratory testing, clinical diagnosis, adequate personal protective equipment, self-isolation, and training/orientation for infection control. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers experienced considerable COVID-19-related physical health issues, including mortalities. This requires targeted interventions and health policies to support healthcare workers worldwide to ensure timely management of the pandemic. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: This umbrella review highlights the global mortalities, infections, and other aspects of physical health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Overall Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals Globally: A Meta-Review of Systematic Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of overall mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. A predefined eligibility criterion was used to screen the articles. The methodology quality of eligible studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the meta-review aim. RESULT: Forty systematic reviews (represented as K = 40), which reported data from 1,828 primary studies (N) and 3,245,768 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The findings from a pooled prevalence indicate that anxiety (16-41%, K = 30, N = 701), depression (14-37%, K = 28, N = 584), and stress/post-traumatic stress disorder (18.6-56.5%, K = 24, N = 327) were the most prevailing COVID-19 pandemic-related mental health conditions affecting healthcare workers. Other reported concerns included insomnia, burnout, fear, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatization symptoms, phobia, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Considering regions/countries, the highest anxiety was reported in the United-Kingdom [22.3, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):7-38, N = 4] compared to other countries, while the highest depression was in the Middle-East, (41, 95% CI:16-60, N = 5) and stress in the Eastern Mediterranean region (61.6, 95% CI:56.4-66.8, N = 2) compared to other regions. The most significant risk factors include female gender, younger age, being a nurse, and frontline professional. The most-reported coping strategies include individual/group psychological support, family/relative support, training/orientation, and the adequacy of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health) have experienced various mental health issues during COVID-19 pandemic. The meta-review, therefore, recommends targeted interventions and health policies that address specific mental health issues to support health professionals worldwide during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar future health crises. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD4202126200, identifier: CRD42021262001.

Analysis of distribution, capacity and utilization of public health facilities in Borno, North-Eastern Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to analyze the spatial distribution and capacities of public health facilities and assess utilization of the facilities in Biu area of Borno State, Nigeria. METHODS: A descriptive survey of health facilities and households were conducted by stratifying the area into 11 electoral wards. Data collection instruments include a hand-held GPS (Garmin 76CSx) and 2 sets of structured questionnaires (facility and household). The hand-held GPS was used in taking the coordinates of each health facility in the area. Twenty-five facility-based and 400 household-based questionnaires were administered. RESULTS: It was identified that 138 public health personnel serve the area's population of 240,838. Medical professionals (doctors/nurses/midwives) to patient ratio is 1:2973, about 7 times less than the minimum WHO recommendation of 2.5 medical personal per 1000 population. Uneven distribution of facilities exists, which impact on utilisation. For instance, a ward (Mandaragrau) with a population of 18,732 have 5 facilities (4 dispensaries and 1 primary health care) in comparison to a ward (Miringa) with a population of 21,343 with only one Dispensary. Income level and distance were significant socio-economic factors affecting service utilisation (p < 0.001). Area's households Gini index was 26.7, most of which (49.7%) survive on less than USD2/day and majority (33.6%) spend an average cost of treatment of ₦2,750 (approx. $8) per clinic visit. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that insufficiency and inequity in distribution of healthcare services exist in Borno State. It is thus recommended that future policies be directed toward improving healthcare in under-served areas.