Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene practices for prevention and control of COVID-19 in Kenya

Enablers and barriers to vaccine uptake and handwashing practices to prevent and control COVID-19 in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania: a systematic review

The global emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) posed unprecedented challenges, jeopardizing decades of progress in healthcare systems, education, and poverty eradication. While proven interventions such as handwashing and mass vaccination offer effective means of curbing COVID-19 spread, their uptake remains low, potentially undermining future pandemic control efforts. This systematic review synthesized available evidence of the factors influencing vaccine uptake and handwashing practices in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania in the context of COVID-19 prevention and control. We conducted an extensive literature search across PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Out of 391 reviewed articles, 18 were eligible for inclusion. Some of the common barriers to handwashing in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania included lack of trust in the government's recommendations or messaging on the benefits of hand hygiene and lack of access to water, while some of the barriers to vaccine uptake included vaccine safety and efficacy concerns and inadequate awareness of vaccination sites and vaccine types. Enablers of handwashing practices encompassed hand hygiene programs and access to soap and water while those of COVID-19 vaccine uptake included improved access to vaccine knowledge and, socio-economic factors like a higher level of education. This review underscores the pivotal role of addressing these barriers while capitalizing on enablers to promote vaccination and handwashing practices. Stakeholders should employ awareness campaigns and community engagement, ensure vaccine and hygiene resources' accessibility, and leverage socio-economic incentives for effective COVID-19 prevention and control. Clinical trial registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [CRD42023396303].

Women in Health and their Economic, Equity and Livelihood statuses during Emergency Preparedness and Response (WHEELER) protocol: a mixed methods study in Kenya

INTRODUCTION

Kenya reported its first COVID-19 case on 13 March 2020. Pandemic-driven health system changes followed and unforeseen societal, economic and health effects reported. This protocol aims to describe the methods used to identify the gender equality and health equity gaps and possible disproportional health and socioeconomic impacts experienced by paid and unpaid (community health volunteer) female healthcare providers in Kilifi and Mombasa Counties, Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Participatory mixed methods framed by gender analysis and human-centred design will be used. Research implementation will follow four of the five phases of the human-centred design approach. Community research advisory groups and local advisory boards will be established to ensure integration and the sustainability of participatory research design.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Scientific and Ethics Review Committee at the Aga Khan University and the University of Manitoba.This study will generate evidence on root cultural, structural, socioeconomic and political factors that perpetuate gender inequities and female disadvantage in the paid and unpaid health sectors. It will also identify evidence-based policy options for future safeguarding of the unpaid and paid female health workforce during emergency preparedness, response and recovery periods.

Assessment of water, hygiene, and sanitation practice and associated factors among Bihari refugee camp in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

The global significance of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) cannot be overstated, extending far beyond the confines of developing nations and encompassing even the most developed ones. This study, rooted in the Bihari refugee camp in Bangladesh, seeks to underscore the universality of WASH concerns.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional design and a structured questionnaire, we conducted a meticulous evaluation of WASH practices with 313 participants selected through random sampling.

Results

Findings shows the water practice, among all of them, only 4.8% of the respondents were very happy with the water supply system and 16.0% of the respondents were happy with this. A total of 29.7% of the respondents were satisfied with safe drinking water and only 4.8% of the respondents were very satisfied with safe drinking water. Regarding the hygiene practice, among all respondents, 10.2% of them were satisfied with using the same bathroom by multiple people. Only 5.4% respondents were happy in their living environment. Regarding sanitation practice, only 31.3% had private toilet facilities. Among all of the respondents, 13.7% of the respondents were satisfied with using the same toilet by multiple people. Respondents who were illiterate (p < 0.01) and self-employed (p < 0.04) were satisfied with the water supply. Similarly, respondents who were illiterate (p < 0.03) and self-employed (p < 0.00) were satisfied with safe drinking water. Respondents who were illiterate (p < 0.02) and whose monthly income was below 8000 BDT (p < 0.00) were satisfied using same bathroom by multiple people. Respondents who were self-employed (p < 0.01), whose monthly income 8000-12,000 BDT (p < 0.01) and having single room (p < 0.00) were satisfied using the same toilet by multiple people.

Conclusion

Enhanced access to safe WASH facilities, coupled with a comprehensive understanding of the study's findings, have the potential to serve as vital signposts for the development and implementation of policies and interventions.

Levels of handwashing and vaccine uptake in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania to prevent and control COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents a massive challenge in Africa due to overwhelmed and underresourced health systems, as well as the existing burden of communicable and non- communicable diseases. Self-inoculation may occur when an individual touches their mucous membrane following direct contact between their hands and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-contaminated surfaces. Therefore, handwashing can be used along with COVID-19 vaccines to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the burden of COVID-19. We were interested in investigating the levels of handwashing and vaccine uptake to control and prevent COVID-19 in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, African Index Medicus and African Journals Online for studies published since inception to 31st January 2023. We included all studies that assessed: the levels of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitance as indicators of vaccine uptake; and studies on the levels of handwashing to prevent and control COVID-19 in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Study findings were synthesized by meta-analysis to get the pooled effect measure. Three studies were synthesized qualitatively due to high level of heterogeneity in effect measure precluding a quantitative meta-analysis.

Results

Our search identified 128 articles of which 17 studies with 18,305 participants and 622 vaccination sites were reviewed with 14 of them being meta-analyzed. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports high levels of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and handwashing in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania at 67% (95% CI: 55, 78) and 88% (95% CI: 73, 97), respectively. Vaccine hesitance among the participants was low at 31% (95% CI: 15, 49).

Discussion

Despite their importance in the control and prevention of COVID-19, some countries do not implement handwashing and vaccination effectively. There is a need for public health strategies to raise awareness about the importance of handwashing and the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO ID CRD42023394698.

Financial risk protection from out-of-pocket health spending in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the literature

Background

Financial risk protection (FRP), defined as households’ access to needed healthcare services without experiencing undue financial hardship, is a critical health systems target, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the remarkable growth in FRP literature in recent times, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on FRP from out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending in LMICs. The objective was to review current knowledge, identify evidence gaps and propose future research directions.

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines to conduct this scoping review. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science in July 2021 for literature published since 1 January 2015. We included empirical studies that used nationally representative data from household surveys to measure the incidence of at least one of the following indicators: catastrophic health expenditure (CHE), impoverishment, adoption of strategies to cope with OOP expenses, and forgone care for financial reasons. Our review covered 155 studies and analysed the geographical focus, data sources, methods and analytical rigour of the studies. We also examined the level of FRP by disease categories (all diseases, chronic illnesses, communicable diseases) and the effect of health insurance on FRP.

Results

The extant literature primarily focused on India and China as research settings. Notably, no FRP study was available on chronic illness in any low-income country (LIC) or on communicable diseases in an upper-middle-income country (UMIC). Only one study comprehensively measured FRP by examining all four indicators. Most studies assessed (lack of) FRP as CHE incidence alone (37.4%) or as CHE and impoverishment incidence (39.4%). However, the LMIC literature did not incorporate the recent methodological advances to measure CHE and impoverishment that address the limitations of conventional methods. There were also gaps in utilizing available panel data to determine the length of the lack of FRP (e.g. duration of poverty caused by OOP expenses). The current estimates of FRP varied substantially among the LMICs, with some of the poorest countries in the world experiencing similar or even lower rates of CHE and impoverishment compared with the UMICs. Also, health insurance in LMICs did not consistently offer a higher degree of FRP.

Conclusion

The literature to date is unable to provide a reliable representation of the actual level of protection enjoyed by the LMIC population because of the lack of comprehensive measurement of FRP indicators coupled with the use of dated methodologies. Future research in LMICs should address the shortcomings identified in this review.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00886-3.

Access to and challenges in water, sanitation, and hygiene in healthcare facilities during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia: A mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

Inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) have an impact on the transmission of infectious diseases, including COVID-19 pandemic. But, there is limited data on the status of WASH facilities in the healthcare settings of Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess WASH facilities and related challenges in the HCFs of Northeastern Ethiopia during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from July to August 2020. About 70 HCFs were selected using a simple random sampling technique. We used a mixed approach of qualitative and quantitative study. The quantitative data were collected by an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire and observational checklist, whereas the qualitative data were collected using a key-informant interview from the head of HCFs, janitors, and WASH coordinator of the HCFs. The quantitative data were entered in EpiData version 4.6 and exported to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 for data cleaning and analysis. The quantitative data on access to WASH facilities was reported using WHO ladder guidelines, which include no access, limited access, and basic access, whereas the qualitative data on challenges to WASH facilities were triangulated with the quantitative result.

RESULTS

From the survey of 70 HCFs, three-fourths 53 (75.7%) were clinics, 12 (17.2%) were health centers, and 5 (7.1%) were hospitals. Most (88.6%) of the HCFs had basic access to water supply. The absence of a specific budget for WASH facilities, non-functional water pipes, the absence of water-quality monitoring systems, and frequent water interruptions were the major problems with water supply, which occurred primarily in clinics and health centers. Due to the absence of separate latrine designated for disabled people, none of the HCFs possessed basic sanitary facilities. Half (51.5%) of the HCFs had limited access to sanitation facilities. The major problems were the absence of separate latrines for healthcare workers and clients, as well as female and male staffs, an unbalanced number of functional latrines for the number of clients, non-functional latrines, poor cleanliness and misuse of the latrine. Less than a quarter of the HCFs 15 (21.4%) had basic access to handwashing facilities, while half 35 (50%) of the HCFs did not. The lack of functional handwashing facilities at expected sites and misuse of the facilities around the latrine, including theft of supplies by visitors, were the two most serious problems with hygiene facilities.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that the majority of HCFs had basic access to water, there were problems in their sanitation and handwashing facilities. The lack of physical infrastructure, poor quality of facilities, lack of separate budget to maintain WASH facilities, and inappropriate utilization of WASH facilities were the main problems in HCFs. Further investigation should be done to assess the enabling factors and constraints for the provision, use, and maintenance of WASH infrastructure at HCFs.