Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated and surfaced long-standing inadequacies in the country's health and social systems. In response to the Philippine government's inefficient and ineffective COVID-19 response and their dismissal of the calls for accountability, Filipinos at the barangay level organized community pantries to respond to the needs of the community. Using WHO's Framework for Community Health Engagement, this study positions community pantries as a unique health phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic within the Philippine context. This study explores the ways that the Maginhawa Community Pantry—the critical case study—addresses both emergent and pre-existing health needs among Filipinos during the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining community pantries from the perspective of the Maginhawa Community Pantry organizer, this paper elucidates how community pantries engage in diverse initiatives that: (1) mobilize the community for health, (2) improve access to healthcare, (3) ensure community collaboration and (4) call for collective action for systemic issues. The findings of this paper highlight the capacity and potential of community pantries as a health response beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and address gaps in the Philippine healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author examines the articles published by various scientific journals about the COVID-19 pandemic to determine whether the appropriate topics are being tackled. Also cited are the countries with the highest number of published articles about the pandemic including the U.S., China, and Italy, as well as the recommended topics for the articles like the virus's genetic sequence, the origin of the virus, and whether asymptomatic patients can spread the virus.

Peer-reviewed journals provide an invaluable but inadequate vehicle for scientific communication. Preprints are now an essential complement to peer-reviewed publications. Eschewing preprints will slow scientific progress and reduce the public health impact of epidemiologic research. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted long-standing limitations of the peer-review process. Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, served as crucial venues to rapidly disseminate research and provide detailed backup to sound-bite science that is often communicated through the popular press or social media. The major criticisms of preprints arise from an unjustified optimism about peer review. Peer review provides highly imperfect sorting and curation of research and only modest improvements in research conduct or presentation for most individual papers. The advantages of peer review come at the expense of months to years of delay in sharing research methods or results. For time-sensitive evidence, these delays can lead to important missteps and ill-advised policies. Even with research that is not intrinsically urgent, preprints expedite debate, expand engagement, and accelerate progress. The risk that poor-quality papers will have undue influence because they are posted on a preprint server is low. If epidemiology aims to deliver evidence relevant for public health, we need to embrace strategic uses of preprint servers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the spread of COVID-19, governments across the world, with very few exceptions, have enacted sweeping restrictive lockdown policies that impede citizens' freedom to move, work, and assemble. This paper critically responds to the central arguments for restrictive lockdown legislation. We build our critique on the following assumption: public policy that enjoys virtually unanimous support worldwide should be justified by uncontroversial moral principles. We argue that the virtually unanimous support in favor of restrictive lockdowns is not adequately justified by the arguments given in favor of them. Importantly, this is not to say that states ought not impose restrictive lockdown measures, but rather that the extent of the acceptance of these measures is not proportionate to the strength of the arguments for lockdowns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the All of Us Research Program longitudinal cohort study developed the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey to better understand the pandemic experiences and health impacts of COVID-19 on diverse populations within the United States. Six survey versions were deployed between May 2020 and March 2021, covering mental health, loneliness, activity, substance use, and discrimination, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, testing, treatment, and vaccination. A total of 104,910 All of Us Research Program participants, of whom over 73% were from communities traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, completed 275,201 surveys; 9,693 completed all 6 surveys. Response rates varied widely among demographic groups and were lower among participants from certain racial and ethnic minority populations, participants with low income or educational attainment, and participants with a Spanish language preference. Survey modifications improved participant response rates between the first and last surveys (13.9% to 16.1%, P  < 0.001). This paper describes a data set with longitudinal COVID-19 survey data in a large, diverse population that will enable researchers to address important questions related to the pandemic, a data set that is of additional scientific value when combined with the program's other data sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health Impact Assessment is a key approach used internationally to identify positive or negative impacts of policies, plans and proposals on health and well-being. In 2020, HIAs were undertaken in Scotland and Wales to identify the potential health and well-being impacts of the 'stay at home' and physical distancing measures implemented at the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There is sparse evidence evaluating whether the impacts predicted in HIAs occur following policy implementation. This paper evaluates the impacts anticipated in the COVID-19 HIAs against actual observed trends. The processes undertaken were compared and predicted impacts were tabulated by population groups and main determinants of health. Routine data and literature evidence were collated to compare predicted and observed impacts. Nearly all health impacts anticipated in both HIAs have occurred in the direction predicted. There have been significant adverse impacts through multiple direct and indirect pathways including loss of income, social isolation, disruption to education and services, and psychosocial effects. This research demonstrates the value of prediction in impact assessment and fills a gap in the literature by comparing the predicted impacts identified within the HIAs with observed trends. Post-COVID-19 recovery should centre health and well-being within future policies and decisions. Processes like HIA can support this as part of a 'health in all policies' approach to improve the health and well-being of populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread through the United States in 2020, states began to set up alert systems to inform policy decisions and serve as risk communication tools for the general public. Many of these systems included indicators based on an assessment of trends in numbers of reported cases. However, when cases are indexed by date of disease onset, reporting delays complicate the interpretation of trends. Despite a foundation of statistical literature with which to address this problem, these methods have not been widely applied in practice. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian spatiotemporal nowcasting model for assessing trends in county-level COVID-19 cases in Ohio. We compare the performance of our model with the approach used in Ohio and the approach included in decision support materials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We demonstrate gains in performance while still retaining interpretability using our model. In addition, we are able to fully account for uncertainty in both the time series of cases and the reporting process. While we cannot eliminate all of the uncertainty in public health surveillance and subsequent decision-making, we must use approaches that embrace these challenges and deliver more accurate and honest assessments to policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The compassionate community movement as both a public health approach and a social model of care for various life stages is gaining traction in Canada and elsewhere. One example is the Windsor-Essex Compassion Care Community (WECCC), an evidence-based model and set of tools to improve the quality of life, health and wellness of vulnerable and aging populations by identifying and addressing upstream and downstream social and other risks to physical and mental health. This paper presents findings from the WECCC pilot evaluation. The WECCC initiative provided one-on-one volunteer-supported quality of life assessment, resource navigation and goals support program (Catalyzing Community Connections). This was augmented with public education sessions on social connection and loneliness (Importance of Being Connected) for the broader population. The RE-AIM framework was used to frame evaluation of WECCC through the first 4 years. Questionnaires were used to evaluate participant outcomes related to implementation and effectiveness. Interviews and focus groups were completed to understand impacts. From 2017 to 2020, WECCC has engaged over 2,500 individuals, 65 organizations and 400 volunteers combined in both programs. Nearly all (82% to 95%) participants reported positive changes to health, quality of life and/or social connections. This developmental phase of a compassionate community initiative has allowed piloting of an evaluation framework focusing on reach, adoption, implementation and early signals of effectiveness and maintenance. This demonstration provides information on feasibility, acceptability and potential impacts of this type of over-arching community initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building successful intersectoral partnerships to address health is critical to reaching health promotion goals. With the confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase in violence during the pandemic and the heightened demand for racial justice resulting from police killings of people of color, particularly young, black males, intersectoral public health–criminal justice partnerships must be more thoroughly examined. Violence prevention is both a public health and criminal justice issue, with public health systems emphasizing primary prevention and criminal justice systems addressing violence prevention at secondary and tertiary levels. Public health–criminal justice collaborations can provide an opportunity to seize upon unrealized violence reduction goals across the spectrum of prevention. At the same time, issues remain that are at odds across field boundaries as exemplified through community violence prevention. While there have been successful examples of such collaborations, past public health–criminal justice partnerships also demonstrate the challenges of working together. These challenges have yet to be systematically described and rooted in the larger literature on partnerships. In this paper, collaborative challenges are enumerated and evidence-informed strategies to overcome those barriers to achieve violence reduction goals are identified as a way to ground further intersectoral partnership work between public health and criminal justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current COVID-19 pandemic confines people to their homes, disrupting the fragile social fabric of deprived neighbourhoods and citizen's participation options. In deprived neighbourhoods, community engagement is central in building community resilience, an important resource for health and a prerequisite for effective health promotion programmes. It provides access to vulnerable groups and helps understand experiences, assets, needs and problems of citizens. Most importantly, community activities, including social support, primary care or improving urban space, enhance health through empowerment, strengthened social networks, mutual respect and providing a sense of purpose and meaning. In the context of inequalities associated with COVID-19, these aspects are crucial for citizens of deprived neighbourhoods who often feel their needs and priorities are ignored. In this perspectives paper, illustrated by a varied overview of community actions in the UK and The Netherlands, we demonstrate how citizens, communities and organizations may build resilience and community power. Based on in-depth discussion among the authors we distilled six features of community actions: increase in mutual aid and neighbourhood ties, the central role of community-based organizations (CBOs), changing patterns of volunteering, use of digital media and health promotion opportunities. We argue that in order to enable and sustain resilient and confident, 'disaster-proof', communities, areas which merit investment include supporting active citizens, new (digital) ways of community engagement, transforming formal organizations, alignment with the (local) context and applying knowledge in the field of health promotion in new ways, focussing on learning and co-creation with citizen initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic is revealing the many ways in which infectious disease control is a spatialized enterprise. Stay-at-home orders, travel bans and travel corridors, restrictions on visiting patients in hospitals, and many more regulations, speak to the power of space and place in conditioning the transmission of infectious diseases and the human experiences of them. Such spatializations have an extremely long history but were codified and formalized in the later nineteenth century as knowledge of bacteria, incubation periods, and asymptomatic carriers became more sophisticated. Two developments reflected this in Great Britain. First, the new use of the term 'contact' as a noun and the naming of 'contacts' as a specific population group. Second, the emergence of the 'reception house', a building for people living in overcrowded dwellings who had been exposed to people with infectious diseases but who were not yet showing signs of disease. Drawing on recent scholarship at the boundary of medical history, architectural history and the histories of biopolitics, this paper uses public health reports, architectural plans, and newspapers to reveal the multiple ambiguities of these spaces, where the uncertainties of bacteriological science, the demands of the capitalist labour system, and the rationales of liberal governance coalesced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The COVID-19 outbreak is increasing and spreading rapidly globally, with over 20 million cases and 800, 000 thousand deaths reported in 216 countries as of 28th August 2020. Since the report of the index case in Nigeria in February 2020 by the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), daily records of confirmed cases have been reported in all states in the country. On 3rd April 2020, an outbreak of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in Ondo State, Southwest Nigeria. Field investigations were conducted by the State Ministry of Health (MoH) to identify and confirm additional cases. This paper provides the outcome of the epidemiological investigation of the outbreak to further guide outbreak response activities. Methods Outbreak settings Ondo State is in the South-West Zone of Nigeria with her capital at Akure. The State is situated between longitudes 40 151E and 60 001E of the Greenwich median and latitudes 50 451N and 70 451 N, which are to the North of the equator in the Southwestern geopolitical zones of the country. Field Investigation The investigation was conducted as part of outbreak control and response measures hence permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Ondo State Ministry of Health (OSMoH). Following an alert from clinicians at a government-owned Hospital, Akure, Ondo State on 30 March 2020, the index case of COVID-19, a 34-year-old male with recent travel history to India was investigated. He arrived at Ondo State on 21st March 2020 and presented at the hospital with cough, sore throat and running nose with the onset of symptoms on 23rd March 2020. The State public health emergency Rapid Response Team (RRT) comprising of Commissioner for Health, State Epidemiologist, State and LGA surveillance officers, and health development partners in the state visited the hospital to investigate and implement public health response. Nasopharygeal and oropharyngeal samples were collected and tested for COVID-19, and returned positive from the national reference laboratory on the 3rd of April 2020. Operational definitions During the onset of the outbreak, three categories of case definitions for COVID-19 were used to guide the outbreak investigations according to the Nigeria Center for Diseases Control (NCDC) guidelines. Suspect case: (1) This is a patient with acute respiratory illness (fever and at least one sign/ symptom of respiratory disease (e.g. cough, shortness of breath) and a history of travel to or residence in a country/area or territory reporting local transmission of COVID-19 disease during the 14 days prior to symptom onset; (2) or a patient/health care worker with any acute respiratory illness and has been in contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the last 14 days prior to the onset of symptoms; (3) or a patient with a severe acute respiratory infection (fever and at least one sign/symptom of respiratory disease (e.g. cough, shortness of breath) and requiring hospitalization and with no other aetiology that fully explains the clinical presentation; (4) or a case for whom testing for COVID-19 is inconclusive. Confirmed case: A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. Probable case: Any suspected case for whom testing for COVID-19 is indeterminate test result or for whom testing was positive on a pan-coronavirus assay Data analysis The State COVID-19 line-list and case investigation forms of all COVID-19 cases from 19th March to 9th August 2020 were retrieved from the state disease surveillance unit, information on key variables were extracted and exported into SPSS version 20 and analyzed. Descriptive statistics such as frequency table, mean (standard deviation) and charts were used to describe key variables including LGA, age, sex, occupation and education and clinical conditions of cases. The week of report of cases and outcomes were used to generate the epidemic curve. The Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables including the socio-demographic characteristics, clinical condition and outcome of cases. Two-sided P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Socio-demographic characteristics of cases A total of 4353 suspected cases were reported and tested for COVID-19, of which 1316 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, with a case fatality rate of 2.2% recorded in 7 of the 17 Local Government Areas that reported at least a confirmed case (Figure 1). Most of the confirmed cases (1169; 88.8%), resides in urban areas (LGAs) (Table 1). Majority [1110 (84.3%)] were within the age group 20 to 59 years, with a mean age of 37.8 ±14.8 years. Males (713; 54.2%) were more affected compare to females (603; 45.8). More than three quarters (1009; 76.7%) of the cases had a tertiary level of education. Health care workers (404; 30.7%) were most affected compared to other professionals as shown in Table 1. 1170 Figure 1: Open in new tab Download slide Distribution of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases in Ondo state, March to August 2020 1170 Figure 1: Open in new tab Download slide Distribution of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases in Ondo state, March to August 2020 1170 Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents N = 1316 Variable.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Age in years       <5  18  1.4  5-19  84  6.4  20-39  666  50.6  40-59  444  33.7  60-79  96  7.3  ≥80  8  0.6  Gender       Male  713  54.2  Female  603  45.8  Location of cases       Rural  147  11.2  Urban  1169  88.8  Type of Education       None  15  1.1  Nursery  8  0.6  Primary  80  6.1  Secondary  204  15.5  Tertiary  1009  76.7  Occupation       Health workers  404  30.7  Businessman and woman  225  17.1  Civil servant  168  12.8  Others  182  13.8  Pupil/Student  129  9.8  Political office Holders  77  5.9  Engineer  48  3.6  Religious/traditional leader  24  1.8  Banker  24  1.8  Security officer  35  2.7  Variable.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Age in years       <5  18  1.4  5-19  84  6.4  20-39  666  50.6  40-59  444  33.7  60-79  96  7.3  ≥80  8  0.6  Gender       Male  713  54.2  Female  603  45.8  Location of cases       Rural  147  11.2  Urban  1169  88.8  Type of Education       None  15  1.1  Nursery  8  0.6  Primary  80  6.1  Secondary  204  15.5  Tertiary  1009  76.7  Occupation       Health workers  404  30.7  Businessman and woman  225  17.1  Civil servant  168  12.8  Others  182  13.8  Pupil/Student  129  9.8  Political office Holders  77  5.9  Engineer  48  3.6  Religious/traditional leader  24  1.8  Banker  24  1.8  Security officer  35  2.7  Open in new tab 1170 Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents N = 1316 Variable.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Age in years       <5  18  1.4  5-19  84  6.4  20-39  666  50.6  40-59  444  33.7  60-79  96  7.3  ≥80  8  0.6  Gender       Male  713  54.2  Female  603  45.8  Location of cases       Rural  147  11.2  Urban  1169  88.8  Type of Education       None  15  1.1  Nursery  8  0.6  Primary  80  6.1  Secondary  204  15.5  Tertiary  1009  76.7  Occupation       Health workers  404  30.7  Businessman and woman  225  17.1  Civil servant  168  12.8  Others  182  13.8  Pupil/Student  129  9.8  Political office Holders  77  5.9  Engineer  48  3.6  Religious/traditional leader  24  1.8  Banker  24  1.8  Security officer  35  2.7  Variable.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Age in years       <5  18  1.4  5-19  84  6.4  20-39  666  50.6  40-59  444  33.7  60-79  96  7.3  ≥80  8  0.6  Gender       Male  713  54.2  Female  603  45.8  Location of cases       Rural  147  11.2  Urban  1169  88.8  Type of Education       None  15  1.1  Nursery  8  0.6  Primary  80  6.1  Secondary  204  15.5  Tertiary  1009  76.7  Occupation       Health workers  404  30.7  Businessman and woman  225  17.1  Civil servant  168  12.8  Others  182  13.8  Pupil/Student  129  9.8  Political office Holders  77  5.9  Engineer  48  3.6  Religious/traditional leader  24  1.8  Banker  24  1.8  Security officer  35  2.7  Open in new tab Admission and clinical conditions of confirmed cases From Table 2 , 88 (6.7%) of the confirmed cases were admitted as inpatient during investigation, while 325 (24.7%) were symptomatic. The first symptom reported by cases were as follows; cough (98; 30.2%), fever (74; 22.8%), headache (30; 9.2%), runny nose (39; 12.0%), sore throat (24; 7.4%) and difficulty in breathing (15; 4.6%). 1170 Table 2: Admission and clinical conditions of confirmed cases.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Admitted as inpatient before lab testing   Yes  88  6.7  No  1228  93.3  Symptomatic       Yes  325  24.7  No  991  75.3  First symptom reported by respondents (n = 325)   Cough  98  30.2  Fever  74  22.8  Headache  30  9.2  Runny nose  39  12.0  Sore throat/pharyngitis  24  7.4  Difficulty breathing  15  4.6  New loss of taste  9  2.7  New loss of smell  8  2.5  Chest pain  7  2.2  General Body weakness  6  1.8  Others  15  4.6  Outcome       Alive  1287  97.8  Dead  29  2.2 .  Frequency.  Percentage.  Admitted as inpatient before lab testing   Yes  88  6.7  No  1228  93.3  Symptomatic       Yes  325  24.7  No  991  75.3  First symptom reported by respondents (n = 325)   Cough  98  30.2  Fever  74  22.8  Headache  30  9.2  Runny nose  39  12.0  Sore throat/pharyngitis  24  7.4  Difficulty breathing  15  4.6  New loss of taste  9  2.7  New loss of smell  8  2.5  Chest pain  7  2.2  General Body weakness  6  1.8  Others  15  4.6  Outcome       Alive  1287  97.8  Dead  29  2.2  Others= abdominal pain; chills/sweats; joint pain; inability to walk; Nausea Open in new tab 1170 Table 2: Admission and clinical conditions of confirmed cases.  Frequency.  Percentage.  Admitted as inpatient before lab testing   Yes  88  6.7  No  1228  93.3  Symptomatic       Yes  325  24.7  No  991  75.3  First symptom reported by respondents (n = 325)   Cough  98  30.2  Fever  74  22.8  Headache  30  9.2  Runny nose  39  12.0  Sore throat/pharyngitis  24  7.4  Difficulty breathing  15  4.6  New loss of taste  9  2.7  New loss of smell  8  2.5  Chest pain  7  2.2  General Body weakness  6  1.8  Others  15  4.6  Outcome       Alive  1287  97.8  Dead  29  2.2 .  Frequency.  Percentage.  Admitted as inpatient before lab testing   Yes  88  6.7  No  1228  93.3  Symptomatic       Yes  325  24.7  No  991  75.3  First symptom reported by respondents (n = 325)   Cough  98  30.2  Fever  74  22.8  Headache  30  9.2  Runny nose  39  12.0  Sore throat/pharyngitis  24  7.4  Difficulty breathing  15  4.6  New loss of taste  9  2.7  New loss of smell  8  2.5  Chest pain  7  2.2  General Body weakness  6  1.8  Others  15  4.6  Outcome       Alive  1287  97.8  Dead  29  2.2  Others= abdominal pain; chills/sweats; joint pain; inability to walk; Nausea Open in new tab Figure 2 described the epidemic curve of the outbreak from March to August 2020. The index case was confirmed on April 4, 2020. Thereafter, there was a surge in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases with the outbreak reaching its peak on July 2, 2020. Afterwards, fluctuations in the number of cases were observed before a steady decline was recorded between August 3, 2020 and August 9, 2020. 1170 Figure 2 Open in new tab Download slide Epi-Curve of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Ondo State, March to August 2020 1170 Figure 2 Open in new tab Download slide Epi-Curve of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Ondo State, March to August 2020 Association between socio-demographic characteristics, clinical conditions and outcomes of cases In Table 3 , significant proportion of death occurred among cases within the age group 60 years and above (14; 13.5%) compared to other age groups (p < 0.001). Death occurred more among males (26; 3.6%) compared to the females (3; 0.5%) (p < 0.001). Furthermore, symptomatic cases had higher proportion (27; 8.3%) of deaths compared to asymptomatic cases (2; 0.2%) (P < 0.001). Among the symptomatic cases, a high proportion of death was found among those with difficulty in breathing (3; 20%), fever (11; 14.9%), new loss of taste (1; 11.1%), cough (9; 9.2%) and sore throat (2; 8.3%) (P < 0.001) 1170 Table 3: Association between socio-demographic characteristics and outcomes of cases Variable.  Outcome. .  Total.  P-value.  Dead.  Alive.  Age in years           <5  0 (0.0)  18 (100.0)  18  <0.001  5-19  0 (0.0)  84 (100.0)  84    20-39  2 (0.3)  664 (99.7)  666    40-59  13 (2.9)  431 (97.1)  444    ≥60  14 (13.5)  90 (86.5)  104    Gender           Male  26 (3.6)  687 (96.4)  713  <0.001  Female  3 (0.5)  600 (99.5)  603    Location of cases           Rural  5 (3.4)  142 (96.6)  147  0.294  Urban  24 (2.1)  1145 (97.9)  1169    Type of Education           None  1 (6.7)  14 (93.3)  15  0.630  Nursery  0 (0.0)  8 (100.0)  8    Primary  3 (3.8)  77 (96.2)  80    Secondary  4 (2.0)  200 (98.0)  204    Tertiary  21 (2.1)  988 (97.9)  1009    Occupation           Health workers  2 (0.5)  402 (99.5)  24    Businessman and woman  14 (6.2)  211 (93.8)  225    Civil servant  1 (0.6)  167 (99.4)  168  <0.001  Others  10 (5.5)  172 (94.5)  182    Pupil/Student  0 (0.0)  129 (100.0)  129    Politician  0 (0.0)  77 (100.0)  77    Engineer  0 (0.0)  48 (100.0)  48    Religious/traditional ruler  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    Banker  0 (0.0)  24 (100.0)  24    Security officer  0 (0.0)  35 (100.0)  35    Symptomatic           Yes  27 (8.3)  298 (91.7)  325  <0.001  No  2 (0.2)  989 (99.8)  991    First symptom       N = 325    Cough  9 (9.2)  89 (90.8)  98    Fever  11 (14.9)  63 (85.1)  74  <0.001  Headache  1 (3.3)  29 (96.7)  30    Running nose  0 (0.0)  39 (100.0)  39    Sore throat  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    New loss of taste  1 (11.1)  8 (88.9)  9    Difficulty in breathing  3 (20.0)  12 (80.0)  15    New loss of smell  0 (0.0)  5 (100.0)  5    Others  0 (0.0)  31 (100.0)  31    Variable.  Outcome. .  Total.  P-value.  Dead.  Alive.  Age in years           <5  0 (0.0)  18 (100.0)  18  <0.001  5-19  0 (0.0)  84 (100.0)  84    20-39  2 (0.3)  664 (99.7)  666    40-59  13 (2.9)  431 (97.1)  444    ≥60  14 (13.5)  90 (86.5)  104    Gender           Male  26 (3.6)  687 (96.4)  713  <0.001  Female  3 (0.5)  600 (99.5)  603    Location of cases           Rural  5 (3.4)  142 (96.6)  147  0.294  Urban  24 (2.1)  1145 (97.9)  1169    Type of Education           None  1 (6.7)  14 (93.3)  15  0.630  Nursery  0 (0.0)  8 (100.0)  8    Primary  3 (3.8)  77 (96.2)  80    Secondary  4 (2.0)  200 (98.0)  204    Tertiary  21 (2.1)  988 (97.9)  1009    Occupation           Health workers  2 (0.5)  402 (99.5)  24    Businessman and woman  14 (6.2)  211 (93.8)  225    Civil servant  1 (0.6)  167 (99.4)  168  <0.001  Others  10 (5.5)  172 (94.5)  182    Pupil/Student  0 (0.0)  129 (100.0)  129    Politician  0 (0.0)  77 (100.0)  77    Engineer  0 (0.0)  48 (100.0)  48    Religious/traditional ruler  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    Banker  0 (0.0)  24 (100.0)  24    Security officer  0 (0.0)  35 (100.0)  35    Symptomatic           Yes  27 (8.3)  298 (91.7)  325  <0.001  No  2 (0.2)  989 (99.8)  991    First symptom       N = 325    Cough  9 (9.2)  89 (90.8)  98    Fever  11 (14.9)  63 (85.1)  74  <0.001  Headache  1 (3.3)  29 (96.7)  30    Running nose  0 (0.0)  39 (100.0)  39    Sore throat  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    New loss of taste  1 (11.1)  8 (88.9)  9    Difficulty in breathing  3 (20.0)  12 (80.0)  15    New loss of smell  0 (0.0)  5 (100.0)  5    Others  0 (0.0)  31 (100.0)  31    Others = chest pain, diarrhea, fatigue, joint pain, malaise, nausea, vomiting Open in new tab 1170 Table 3: Association between socio-demographic characteristics and outcomes of cases Variable.  Outcome. .  Total.  P-value.  Dead.  Alive.  Age in years           <5  0 (0.0)  18 (100.0)  18  <0.001  5-19  0 (0.0)  84 (100.0)  84    20-39  2 (0.3)  664 (99.7)  666    40-59  13 (2.9)  431 (97.1)  444    ≥60  14 (13.5)  90 (86.5)  104    Gender           Male  26 (3.6)  687 (96.4)  713  <0.001  Female  3 (0.5)  600 (99.5)  603    Location of cases           Rural  5 (3.4)  142 (96.6)  147  0.294  Urban  24 (2.1)  1145 (97.9)  1169    Type of Education           None  1 (6.7)  14 (93.3)  15  0.630  Nursery  0 (0.0)  8 (100.0)  8    Primary  3 (3.8)  77 (96.2)  80    Secondary  4 (2.0)  200 (98.0)  204    Tertiary  21 (2.1)  988 (97.9)  1009    Occupation           Health workers  2 (0.5)  402 (99.5)  24    Businessman and woman  14 (6.2)  211 (93.8)  225    Civil servant  1 (0.6)  167 (99.4)  168  <0.001  Others  10 (5.5)  172 (94.5)  182    Pupil/Student  0 (0.0)  129 (100.0)  129    Politician  0 (0.0)  77 (100.0)  77    Engineer  0 (0.0)  48 (100.0)  48    Religious/traditional ruler  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    Banker  0 (0.0)  24 (100.0)  24    Security officer  0 (0.0)  35 (100.0)  35    Symptomatic           Yes  27 (8.3)  298 (91.7)  325  <0.001  No  2 (0.2)  989 (99.8)  991    First symptom       N = 325    Cough  9 (9.2)  89 (90.8)  98    Fever  11 (14.9)  63 (85.1)  74  <0.001  Headache  1 (3.3)  29 (96.7)  30    Running nose  0 (0.0)  39 (100.0)  39    Sore throat  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    New loss of taste  1 (11.1)  8 (88.9)  9    Difficulty in breathing  3 (20.0)  12 (80.0)  15    New loss of smell  0 (0.0)  5 (100.0)  5    Others  0 (0.0)  31 (100.0)  31    Variable.  Outcome. .  Total.  P-value.  Dead.  Alive.  Age in years           <5  0 (0.0)  18 (100.0)  18  <0.001  5-19  0 (0.0)  84 (100.0)  84    20-39  2 (0.3)  664 (99.7)  666    40-59  13 (2.9)  431 (97.1)  444    ≥60  14 (13.5)  90 (86.5)  104    Gender           Male  26 (3.6)  687 (96.4)  713  <0.001  Female  3 (0.5)  600 (99.5)  603    Location of cases           Rural  5 (3.4)  142 (96.6)  147  0.294  Urban  24 (2.1)  1145 (97.9)  1169    Type of Education           None  1 (6.7)  14 (93.3)  15  0.630  Nursery  0 (0.0)  8 (100.0)  8    Primary  3 (3.8)  77 (96.2)  80    Secondary  4 (2.0)  200 (98.0)  204    Tertiary  21 (2.1)  988 (97.9)  1009    Occupation           Health workers  2 (0.5)  402 (99.5)  24    Businessman and woman  14 (6.2)  211 (93.8)  225    Civil servant  1 (0.6)  167 (99.4)  168  <0.001  Others  10 (5.5)  172 (94.5)  182    Pupil/Student  0 (0.0)  129 (100.0)  129    Politician  0 (0.0)  77 (100.0)  77    Engineer  0 (0.0)  48 (100.0)  48    Religious/traditional ruler  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    Banker  0 (0.0)  24 (100.0)  24    Security officer  0 (0.0)  35 (100.0)  35    Symptomatic           Yes  27 (8.3)  298 (91.7)  325  <0.001  No  2 (0.2)  989 (99.8)  991    First symptom       N = 325    Cough  9 (9.2)  89 (90.8)  98    Fever  11 (14.9)  63 (85.1)  74  <0.001  Headache  1 (3.3)  29 (96.7)  30    Running nose  0 (0.0)  39 (100.0)  39    Sore throat  2 (8.3)  22 (91.7)  24    New loss of taste  1 (11.1)  8 (88.9)  9    Difficulty in breathing  3 (20.0)  12 (80.0)  15    New loss of smell  0 (0.0)  5 (100.0)  5    Others  0 (0.0)  31 (100.0)  31    Others = chest pain, diarrhea, fatigue, joint pain, malaise, nausea, vomiting Open in new tab Conclusions The outcome of this investigation indicating high transmission among urban residence and health care workers are key public health concerns in the response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Ondo State, Nigeria. Furthermore, high case mortality among the older age groups requires public health intervention. Thus, we recommend intensified risk communication, enhanced surveillance activities, and use of community structures such as community and religious leaders, market and commercial vehicles associations, Ward Development Committee (WDC) and Village Development Committee (VDC) to ensure compliance with public health COVID-19 preventive measures particularly in the urban areas and among those facing a high risk of death. Furthermore, there is a need to prioritize public health interventions including training and vaccination among the vulnerable groups including health care workers who serve as front liners during case investigation, testing and case management. Key messages Enforcement of public health preventive measures particularly in urban settings, and supporting government to strengthen and monitor Infection Prevention and Control practices in hospital settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 has reinforced the centrality of health workers at the core of a well performing and resilient health system. It has concomitantly exposed the risks of staffing and skills shortages and the importance of protecting the health workforce. This paper focuses on highlighting some of the lessons learnt, challenges and future needs of the health workforce in Europe in the context of COVID-19. Methods: We use secondary sources and expert information. Results: During the pandemic innovative and flexible approaches were implemented to meet increasing demand for health workers and new skills and responsibilities were adopted over a short period of time. We have seen the rapid adaptation and use of new technologies to deliver care. The pandemic has underlined the importance of valuing, protecting and caring for our health workforce and the need to invest appropriately and adequately in the health workforce to have sufficient, capable and wellmotivated health workers. Some of the main challenges that lie ahead of us include the imperative for better investment, to need to improve recruitment and retraining whilst better retaining health workers, a focus on domestic sustainability, redeploying and developing new skills and competences among health workers, enabling more effective multi-professional collaboration and team work, improving the quality of education and training, increasing the public health focus and promoting ethical and sustainable international recruitment of health workers. Conclusions: The WHO European Region through its European Programme of Work 2020-2025 is fully committed to support countries in their efforts to continue to respond to COVID-19 and whilst addressing upcoming health workforce challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]