Search

Background: Health is increasingly affected by multiple types of crises. Community engagement is recognised as being a critical element in successful crisis response, and a number of conceptual frameworks and global guideline documents have been produced. However, little is known about the usefulness of such documents and whether they contain sufficient information to guide effective community engagement in crisis response. We undertake a scoping review to examine the usefulness of conceptual literature and official guidelines on community engagement in crisis response using a realist-informed analysis [exploring contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes(CMOs)]. Specifically, we assess the extent to which sufficient detail is provided on specific health crisis contexts, the range of mechanisms (actions) that are developed and employed to engage communities in crisis response and the outcomes achieved. We also consider the extent of analysis of interactions between the mechanisms and contexts which can explain whether successful outcomes are achieved or not. Scope and findings: We retained 30 documents from a total of 10,780 initially identified. Our analysis found that available evidence on context, mechanism and outcomes on community engagement in crisis response, or some of their elements, was promising, but few documents provided details on all three and even fewer were able to show evidence of the interactions between these categories, thus leaving gaps in understanding how to successfully engage communities in crisis response to secure impactful outcomes. There is evidence that involving community members in all the steps of response increases community resilience and helps to build trust. Consistent communication with the communities in time of crisis is the key for effective responses and helps to improve health indicators by avoiding preventable deaths. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms the complexity of successful community engagement and the need for strategies that help to deal with this complexity to achieve good health outcomes. Further primary research is needed to answer questions of how and why specific mechanisms, in particular contexts, can lead to positive outcomes, including what works and what does not work and how to measure these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infectious disease outbreaks like Ebola and Covid-19 are increasing in frequency. They may harm reproductive, maternal and newborn health (RMNH) directly and indirectly. Sierra Leone experienced a sharp deterioration of RMNH during the 2014–16 Ebola epidemic. One possible explanation is that donor funding may have been diverted away from RMNH to the Ebola response. Methods: We analysed donor-reported data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reported System (CRS) data for Sierra Leone before, during and after the 2014–16 Ebola epidemic to understand whether aid flows for Ebola displaced aid for RMNH. We estimated aid for Ebola using key term searches and manual review of CRS records. We estimated aid for RMNH by applying the Muskoka-2 algorithm to the CRS and analysing CRS purpose codes. Results: We find substantial increases in aid to Sierra Leone (from $484 million in 2013 to $1 billion at the height of the epidemic in 2015), most of which was earmarked for the Ebola response. Overall, Ebola aid was additional to RMNH funding. RMNH aid was sustained during the epidemic (at $42 m per year) and peaked immediately after (at $77 m in 2016). There is some evidence of a small displacement of RMNH aid from the UK during the period when its Ebola funding increased. Conclusions: Modest changes to RMNH donor aid patterns are insufficient to explain the severe decline in RMNH indicators recorded during the outbreak. Our findings therefore suggest the need for substantial increases in routine aid to ensure that basic RMNH services and infrastructure are strong before an epidemic occurs, as well as increased aid for RMNH during epidemics like Ebola and Covid-19, if reproductive, maternal and newborn healthcare is to be maintained at pre-epidemic levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2013–15 Ebola epidemic in West Africa was the largest so far recorded, and mainly affected three adjacent countries, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The worst affected country (in terms of confirmed cases) was Sierra Leone. The present paper looks at the epidemic in Sierra Leone. The epidemic in this country was a concatenation of local outbreaks. These local outbreaks are not well characterized through analysis using standard numerical techniques. In part, this reflects difficulties in record collection at the height of the epidemic. This paper offers a different approach, based on application of field-based techniques of social investigation that provide a richer understanding of the epidemic. Methods: In a post-epidemic study (2016–18) of two districts (Bo and Moyamba) we use ethnographic data to reconstruct local infection pathways from evidence provided by affected communities, cross-referenced to records of the epidemic retained by the National Ebola Response Commission, now lodged in the Ebola Museum and Archive at Njala University. Our study documents and discusses local social and contextual factors largely missing from previously published studies. Results: Our major finding is that the epidemic in Sierra Leone was a series of local outbreaks, some of which were better contained than others. In those that were not well contained, a number of contingent factors helps explain loss of control. Several numerical studies have drawn attention to the importance of local heterogeneities in the Sierra Leone Ebola epidemic. Our qualitative study throws specific light on a number of elements that explain these heterogeneities: the role of externalities, health system deficiencies, cultural considerations and local coping capacities. Conclusions: Social issues and local contingencies explain the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone and are key to understanding heterogeneities in epidemiological data. Integrating ethnographic research into epidemic-response is critical to properly understand the patterns of spread and the opportunities to intervene. This conclusion has significant implications for future interdisciplinary research and interpretation of standard numerical data, and consequently for control of epidemic outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products are a serious health and economic concern that disproportionately impact low- and middle-income countries and marginalized groups. Public education campaigns are demand-side interventions that may reduce risk of SF exposure, but the effectiveness of such campaigns, and their likelihood of benefitting everybody, is unclear. Nationwide pilot risk communication campaigns, involving multiple media, were deployed in Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda in 2020-2021. Focus group discussions (n=73 FGDs with n=611 total participants) and key informant interviews (n=80 individual interviews and n=4 group interviews with n=111 total informants) were conducted within each of the four countries to ascertain the reach and effectiveness of the campaign. Small proportions of focus group discussants (8.0%-13.9%) and key informants (12.5%-31.4%) had previously encountered the campaign materials. Understandability was varied: the use of English and select local languages, combined with high rates of illiteracy, meant that some were not able to understand the campaign. The capacity for people to act on the messages was extremely limited: inaccessibility, unavailability, and unaffordability of quality-assured medicines from official sources, as well as illiteracy, constrained what people could realistically do in response to the campaign. Importantly, reach, understandability, and capacity to respond were especially limited amongst marginalized groups, who are already at greatest risk of exposure to SF products. These findings suggest that there may be potential for public education campaigns to help combat the issue of SF medicines through prevention, but that the impact of public education is likely to be limited and may even inadvertently widen health inequities. This indicates that public education campaigns are not a single solution; they can only be properly effective if accompanied by health system strengthening and supply-side interventions that aim to increase the effectiveness of regulation., (© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)