Conference Material > Abstract
Croft LA, Puig-García M, Silver C, Pearlman J, Stellmach DUS, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 9 May 2022; DOI:10.57740/b641-d608
INTRODUCTION
Between 2020 and 2021, MSF’s social sciences team designed and supported implementation of qualitative assessments to better understand community-level outbreak responses and well-being in the context of Covid-19. Assessments were conducted in seven sites, specifically Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Chad, Iraq, Tajikistan, Syria, and Somaliland. Although a single protocol was designed and followed, each site was unique in terms of its setting (e.g. camp, conflict, urban, or rural), who implemented assessments (e.g. field epidemiologists, health promotion staff), timing of implementation (early phase of the pandemic versus late phase), and community involvement. Here we present a synthesis of the assessments to inform future public health responses.
METHODS
Synthesis involved secondary analysis of qualitative reports over five iterative phases. Phase 1 involved in-depth reading of each report, during which analytic annotation and note-taking took place. In Phase 2, each report was coded inductively. In Phase 3, codes were reviewed, defined, and clustered into initial categories and themes. Phase 4 involved reviewing and refining codes, categories, and themes, and establishing connections. In Phase 5, synthesis findings were organised and written up. The process was managed using the software ATLAS.ti.
ETHICS
This synthesis is an a posteriori analysis of secondary data. Ethics approval for primary data was granted by officials in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Chad, Iraq, Tajikistan, Syria, and Somaliland and the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
Overall 138, people participated in the assessments, of which 21 (15%) were women. Participants included health workers, community members, traditional healers, chiefs, young people, women’s leaders and local staff. Four themes were identified: 1) exacerbation of pre-existing vulnerabilities and inequalities; 2) disruption of coping mechanisms; 3) awareness of the risks of Covid-19; 4) community as a public health enabler. The pandemic was seen to magnify existing social inequalities and overall health burden. Public health measures to control the spread of Covid-19 often disrupted community coping mechanisms by causing fear of separation and practical challenges around compliance. Awareness of the risks of Covid-19 and understanding of prevention measures were high, with socio-economic costs of compliance relying on external funding and relief. A community led intervention for effective public health controls varied between sites, depending on previous outbreak experiences (e.g. Ebola and tuberculosis), and/or settings experiencing protracted conflict (e.g. Syria, and Iraq).
CONCLUSION
Our synthesis illustrates syndemic effects of the pandemic. From an operational perspective, there is a need to diversify humanitarian, social, and health interventions, and strengthen approaches to working with communities to identify how best to take forward public health measures in humanitarian settings.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Between 2020 and 2021, MSF’s social sciences team designed and supported implementation of qualitative assessments to better understand community-level outbreak responses and well-being in the context of Covid-19. Assessments were conducted in seven sites, specifically Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Chad, Iraq, Tajikistan, Syria, and Somaliland. Although a single protocol was designed and followed, each site was unique in terms of its setting (e.g. camp, conflict, urban, or rural), who implemented assessments (e.g. field epidemiologists, health promotion staff), timing of implementation (early phase of the pandemic versus late phase), and community involvement. Here we present a synthesis of the assessments to inform future public health responses.
METHODS
Synthesis involved secondary analysis of qualitative reports over five iterative phases. Phase 1 involved in-depth reading of each report, during which analytic annotation and note-taking took place. In Phase 2, each report was coded inductively. In Phase 3, codes were reviewed, defined, and clustered into initial categories and themes. Phase 4 involved reviewing and refining codes, categories, and themes, and establishing connections. In Phase 5, synthesis findings were organised and written up. The process was managed using the software ATLAS.ti.
ETHICS
This synthesis is an a posteriori analysis of secondary data. Ethics approval for primary data was granted by officials in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Chad, Iraq, Tajikistan, Syria, and Somaliland and the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
Overall 138, people participated in the assessments, of which 21 (15%) were women. Participants included health workers, community members, traditional healers, chiefs, young people, women’s leaders and local staff. Four themes were identified: 1) exacerbation of pre-existing vulnerabilities and inequalities; 2) disruption of coping mechanisms; 3) awareness of the risks of Covid-19; 4) community as a public health enabler. The pandemic was seen to magnify existing social inequalities and overall health burden. Public health measures to control the spread of Covid-19 often disrupted community coping mechanisms by causing fear of separation and practical challenges around compliance. Awareness of the risks of Covid-19 and understanding of prevention measures were high, with socio-economic costs of compliance relying on external funding and relief. A community led intervention for effective public health controls varied between sites, depending on previous outbreak experiences (e.g. Ebola and tuberculosis), and/or settings experiencing protracted conflict (e.g. Syria, and Iraq).
CONCLUSION
Our synthesis illustrates syndemic effects of the pandemic. From an operational perspective, there is a need to diversify humanitarian, social, and health interventions, and strengthen approaches to working with communities to identify how best to take forward public health measures in humanitarian settings.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Conference Material > Abstract
Briskin E, Smith JS, Caleo GNC, Lenglet AD, Pearlman J, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 18 May 2021
INTRODUCTION
In April 2020, “shielding” (separate living spaces with enhanced infection control support for groups at high risk of severe COVID-19 disease) was proposed for COVID-19 prevention in settings where lockdown is not feasible (i.e. displaced persons camps). MSF used qualitative methods to explore community perceptions of shielding and other potential COVID-19 prevention measures applicable in settings where it works. Nigeria and Sierra Leone served as initial pilot sites for this multi-site study that ultimately included 13 countries.
METHODS
We carried out qualitative assessments between April and August 2020 within 9 MSF-supported sites in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, with the aim of exploring community perceptions of potential COVID-19 prevention measures. Sites in Nigeria included internally displaced camps in two states, and in Sierra Leone, an open village setting. We conducted multiple rounds of participant-led individual in-depth qualitative interviews in the study sites between April-August 2020. We recruited participants purposively, ensuring participants recruited were representative of underlying demographic and ethnic diversity. Data were coded by hand on paper copies of transcripts and in NVivo12 and analyzed for key themes. Findings were built on through iteration with participants.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board and by the Ethical Review Boards of Benue State, Nigeria, Zamfara State, Nigeria, and the District Health Management team,
Tonkolilli, Sierra Leone.
RESULTS
Participants reported that access to both COVID-19 and non- COVID-19 care was challenging due to fear of infection and practical difficulties attending care facilities. Key priorities noted
by participants included obtaining food, masks and handwashing, and continuing to get access to non-COVID-19 healthcare. In Nigeria, shielding (providing separate dwellings for high-risk
people) was described as a challenge.
Reasons for this included close living conditions affecting practicality, its impact on mental health, and the community’s inter-generational reliance. Shielding was only seen as feasible
with sustained provision of resources for shielded persons including COVID testing, food from the family, mobile phones, and socially distanced visitation. For Sierra Leone, previous
experiences (e.g. war, Ebola) influenced fears of separation and the possibility of infection from contact with strangers and health workers or health facilities. Lockdowns and school
closures have a negative effect on support networks and local economies, and in Sierra Leone increased the perceived risk of sexual and gender-based violence and exploitation. Participants reported the desire for self-management of contact tracing and transmission prevention activities within their communities. Context-specific activities to address these priorities were implemented in response.
CONCLUSION
The community-based feedback provided a better understanding of attitudes towards and feasibility of COVID-19 control measures. Commonalities were reported across sites, while
differences in findings across sites highlighted the importance of context-specific engagement. Early and continued community engagement allowed context-specific activities to address these priorities to be implemented in partnership with communities in response. Implemented activities included enhancement of handwashing points, subsidizing locally-produced cloth masks, and reinforcement of prevention and control for non-COVID diseases such as malaria.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
In April 2020, “shielding” (separate living spaces with enhanced infection control support for groups at high risk of severe COVID-19 disease) was proposed for COVID-19 prevention in settings where lockdown is not feasible (i.e. displaced persons camps). MSF used qualitative methods to explore community perceptions of shielding and other potential COVID-19 prevention measures applicable in settings where it works. Nigeria and Sierra Leone served as initial pilot sites for this multi-site study that ultimately included 13 countries.
METHODS
We carried out qualitative assessments between April and August 2020 within 9 MSF-supported sites in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, with the aim of exploring community perceptions of potential COVID-19 prevention measures. Sites in Nigeria included internally displaced camps in two states, and in Sierra Leone, an open village setting. We conducted multiple rounds of participant-led individual in-depth qualitative interviews in the study sites between April-August 2020. We recruited participants purposively, ensuring participants recruited were representative of underlying demographic and ethnic diversity. Data were coded by hand on paper copies of transcripts and in NVivo12 and analyzed for key themes. Findings were built on through iteration with participants.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board and by the Ethical Review Boards of Benue State, Nigeria, Zamfara State, Nigeria, and the District Health Management team,
Tonkolilli, Sierra Leone.
RESULTS
Participants reported that access to both COVID-19 and non- COVID-19 care was challenging due to fear of infection and practical difficulties attending care facilities. Key priorities noted
by participants included obtaining food, masks and handwashing, and continuing to get access to non-COVID-19 healthcare. In Nigeria, shielding (providing separate dwellings for high-risk
people) was described as a challenge.
Reasons for this included close living conditions affecting practicality, its impact on mental health, and the community’s inter-generational reliance. Shielding was only seen as feasible
with sustained provision of resources for shielded persons including COVID testing, food from the family, mobile phones, and socially distanced visitation. For Sierra Leone, previous
experiences (e.g. war, Ebola) influenced fears of separation and the possibility of infection from contact with strangers and health workers or health facilities. Lockdowns and school
closures have a negative effect on support networks and local economies, and in Sierra Leone increased the perceived risk of sexual and gender-based violence and exploitation. Participants reported the desire for self-management of contact tracing and transmission prevention activities within their communities. Context-specific activities to address these priorities were implemented in response.
CONCLUSION
The community-based feedback provided a better understanding of attitudes towards and feasibility of COVID-19 control measures. Commonalities were reported across sites, while
differences in findings across sites highlighted the importance of context-specific engagement. Early and continued community engagement allowed context-specific activities to address these priorities to be implemented in partnership with communities in response. Implemented activities included enhancement of handwashing points, subsidizing locally-produced cloth masks, and reinforcement of prevention and control for non-COVID diseases such as malaria.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Briskin E, Smith JS, Caleo GNC, Lenglet AD, Pearlman J, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 18 May 2021
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Croft LA, Puig-García M, Silver C, Pearlman J, Stellmach DUS, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 9 May 2022; DOI:10.57740/pe41-5813
Conference Material > Poster
Pearlman J, Baker H
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 18 May 2021