Search

BackgroundIn response to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plenty of control measures were proposed. To assess the impact of current control measures on the number of new case indices 14 countries with the highest confirmed cases, highest mortality rate, and having a close relationship with the outbreak's origin; were selected and analyzed.MethodsIn the study, we analyzed the impact of five control measures, including centralized isolation of all confirmed cases, closure of schools, closure of public areas, closure of cities, and closure of borders of the 14 targeted countries according to their timing; by comparing its absolute effect average, its absolute effect cumulative, and its relative effect average.ResultsOur analysis determined that early centralized isolation of all confirmed cases was represented as a core intervention in significantly disrupting the pandemic's spread. This strategy helped in successfully controlling the early stage of the outbreak when the total number of cases were under 100, without the requirement of the closure of cities and public areas, which would impose a negative impact on the society and its economy. However, when the number of cases increased with the apparition of new clusters, coordination between centralized isolation and non-pharmaceutical interventions facilitated control of the crisis efficiently.ConclusionEarly centralized isolation of all confirmed cases should be implemented at the time of the first detected infectious case.

BackgroundSince the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave.MethodsThis multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training.ResultsWe surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0-14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6-32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (pInterpretationThere was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.

BackgroundNodding syndrome (NS), is an unexplained form of epilepsy which leads to stunted growth, cognitive decline, and a characteristic nodding of the head. Current data about its impact on households in Uganda is scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the economic burden of the persistent morbidity of NS on caregivers in affected households in Northern Uganda.MethodsA cross-sectional cost-of-care study was conducted from January 2019 to February 2019 in Lakwela village-Northern Uganda in 14 households, who are members of a community-based organization (CBO) established in the village with the support of a Japanese research team, (Uganda-Japan Nodding Syndrome Network). Data was collected through questionnaires. Both direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect (informal care) costs of caregiving were assessed. Indirect costs were valued using the human-capital method as loss of production.ResultsDirect costs constituted a higher proportion of costs for NS households, accounting for on average 7.7% of household expenditure. The annual weighted mean cost per NS patient was estimated at 27.6 USD (26.4 USD direct costs, 96.2% and 1.2 USD indirect cost, 3.8%). Average time spent on informal caregiving was 4.4 ±1.7 (standard deviation) hours/week with an estimated annual informal caregiving cost of 24.85 USD and gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 412.40 USD.ConclusionDirect costs due to NS are still high among households in this study. More studies are needed to investigate measures that could help bring down these costs and equally reduce the day-to-day disruption of caregiver's activities; consequently, improving the lives of these affected households and communities.