Search

Abstract Background In 2021, an Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak was declared in Guinea, linked to persistent virus from the 2014–2016 West Africa Epidemic. This paper analyzes factors associated with contact tracing reliability (defined as completion of a 21-day daily follow-up) during the 2021 outbreak, and transitively, provides recommendations for enhancing contact tracing reliability in future. Methods We conducted a descriptive and analytical cross-sectional study using multivariate regression analysis of contact tracing data from 1071 EVD contacts of 23 EVD cases (16 confirmed and 7 probable). Results Findings revealed statistically significant factors affecting contact tracing reliability. Unmarried contacts were 12.76× more likely to miss follow-up than those married (OR = 12.76; 95% CI [3.39–48.05]; p

The 10th and largest Ebola virus disease epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was declared in North Kivu Province in August 2018 and ended in June 2020. We describe and evaluate an Early Warning, Alert and Response System (EWARS) implemented in the Beni health zone of DRC during August 5, 2018–June 30, 2020. During this period, 194,768 alerts were received, of which 30,728 (15.8%) were validated as suspected cases. From these, 801 confirmed and 3 probable cases were detected. EWARS showed an overall good performance: sensitivity and specificity >80%, nearly all (97%) of alerts investigated within 2 hours of notification, and good demographic representativeness. The average cost of the system was US $438/case detected and US $1.8/alert received. The system was stable, despite occasional disruptions caused by political insecurity. Our results demonstrate that EWARS was a cost-effective component of the Ebola surveillance strategy in this setting.

Introduction Despite tremendous progress in the development of diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for Ebola virus disease (EVD), challenges remain in the implementation of holistic strategies to rapidly curtail outbreaks. We investigated the effectiveness of a community-based contact isolation strategy to limit the spread of the disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).Methods We did a quasi-experimental comparison study. Eligible participants were EVD contacts registered from 12 June 2019 to 18 May 2020 in Beni and Mabalako Health Zones. Intervention group participants were isolated to specific community sites for the duration of their follow-up. Comparison group participants underwent contact tracing without isolation. The primary outcome was measured as the reproduction number (R) in the two groups. Secondary outcomes were the delay from symptom onset to isolation and case management, case fatality rate (CFR) and vaccination uptake.Results 27 324 EVD contacts were included in the study; 585 in the intervention group and 26 739 in the comparison group. The intervention group generated 32 confirmed cases (5.5%) in the first generation, while the comparison group generated 87 (0.3%). However, the 32 confirmed cases arising from the intervention contacts did not generate any additional transmission (R=0.00), whereas the 87 confirmed cases arising from the comparison group generated 99 secondary cases (R=1.14). The average delay between symptom onset and case isolation was shorter (1.3 vs 4.8 days; p

Background The Ebola virus is known as one of the deadliest pathogens to infect humans. Children represent a minority of Ebola Virus Disease cases globally. Yet, the different Ebola outbreaks in Africa had a wide impact on children’s lives and children’ rights. Objective Review the published literature to date on Children’s rights during Ebola outbreaks. Outcomes shall contribute to get a better understanding of the main limitations or violations of children’s rights, identify potential gaps in the literature and support the promotion and protection of children’s rights for current and future health crisis. Methods A scoping review from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Articles, reports and editorial, published on Ebola Outbreaks between 1976 and 2020 were retrieved. The UNCRC clusters of rights and treaty specific guidelines were used as a framework. Documents were found through a targeted search of websites from international or regional organisations involved in Ebola crises and children’s protection. Results 48 articles and reports were reviewed. Few documents focused solely on children’s rights. Several articles covered the topic of children and Ebola outbreaks. Most of the data are linked to basic health, education, discrimination of orphans and survivors. 31% of the reviewed articles underline the violence against the children (rape, abuse, Female genital mutilations), while 21% focus on the right to education. 23% cover the topic of orphans. Impact on mental health and SRH were amongst the other covered topics. Conclusion A lack of data on children’s rights and their violations during epidemics is observed. Regional and international collaboration is needed to document the situation of children in health emergencies. Health measures and strategies based on children’s opinions and raising awareness of their crucial role in society is key. Child-centred guidelines should be developed based on these elements.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led policy makers to expand traditional public health surveillance to take advantage of new technologies, such as tracking apps, to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This article explores the human rights dimensions of how these new surveillance technologies are being used and assesses the extent to which they entail legitimate restrictions to a range of human rights, including the rights to health, life, and privacy. We argue that human rights offer a crucial framework for protecting the public from regulatory overreach by ensuring that digital health surveillance does not undermine fundamental features of democratic society. First, we describe the surveillance technologies being used to address COVID-19 and reposition these technologies within the evolution of public health surveillance tools and the emergence of discussions concerning the compatibility of such tools with human rights. We then evaluate the potential human rights implications of the surveillance tools being used today by analyzing the extent to which they pass the tests of necessity and proportionality enshrined in international human rights law. We conclude by recommending ways in which the harmful human rights effects associated with these technologies might be reduced and public trust in their use enhanced.

Abstract Background When it comes to gender-based violence (GBV), migrant women and girls represent the most vulnerable group. GBV can happen at any stage of migrants’ flight and/or during the asylum process. It has severe consequences on their life and health. Victims therefore need timely access to healthcare. This study explores the context GBV victims face when they seek refuge in Switzerland. Methods Qualitative methodology was used where we conducted five semi-structured focus groups and three interviews. A total of sixteen stakeholders participated in the study. They were either involved in the asylum process or provided healthcare to asylum seekers. We analyzed the data using framework analysis. Results Study participants noted lack of confidence of the GBV victims in the legal and in the healthcare systems as major barriers to disclosure of GBV. Since only GBV exerted before fleeing the home country gives the right to asylum, they pointed out that victims do not disclose GBV that took place after they left their home country. Language was identified as a barrier to disclosure of GBV as well as to healthcare access. Continuity of care at the moment of transfer from federal to cantonal (i.e. state) accommodations is another issue that was deemed critical. Study participants felt that health professionals must be trained to identify GBV victims. The first-contact caregiver available to these victims was deemed as the most competent professional that could act as a “GBV coordinator”. Conclusion In Switzerland, access to healthcare is guaranteed to all asylum seekers on a legal and structural level. Yet, health seeking by GBV survivors is hindered by factors such as lack of confidence in the legal system, trust in health providers, and continuity of care during the asylum process. Building trust in legal institutions, health structures, and professionals should be enhanced to facilitate disclosure and to strengthen resilience. This includes a healthcare system with competent professionals, support with language and cultural needs, as well as seamless continuity of care beyond cantonal borders.

The reality of migration today is that a large majority of migrants in vulnerable situations either do not have access, or have only very restricted access, to healthcare. While the current importance of the migratory phenomenon and the need to provide protection to disadvantaged migrants has, in recent years, trig-gered a strong response from the international community in favour of the protec-tion of the rights of persons, either refugees or migrants, fleeing their countries of origin; the central challenge of protecting and promoting the right of migrants to health seems as difficult to as ever. This article firstly sets out the international community’s recent political commitments to protect the human rights of migrants as well as the norms of international law applicable to the protection of the health of migrants, mainly contained within international human rights law and interna-tional refugee and migrant law. It then discusses the numerous barriers at the na-tional level which block migrants, particularly in vulnerable situations, from ac-cessing care. In doing so, this article highlights the profound paradoxes between State’s international commitments on the one hand, and State practices to protect and promote migrant access to healthcare on the other.

This article first analyses the various dimensions of the public health and human rights crisis, in order to identify, secondly, the breadth of the efforts that need to be made for a short- and long-term human rights-based response to COVID-19.