Search

ObjectivesChad reports the second highest maternal mortality worldwide. We conducted a survey in Sila region in southeast Chad to estimate the use of maternal health services (MHS) and to identify barriers to access MHS.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional, population-based survey using two-stage cluster sampling methodology. The survey consisted of two strata, Koukou Angarana and Goz Beida district in Sila region. We conducted systematic random sampling proportional to population size to select settlements in each strata in the first sampling stage; and in the second stage we selected households in the settlements using random walk procedure. We calculated survey-design-weighted proportions with 95% CIs. We performed univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression to identify impact factors associated with the use of MHS.SettingWe interviewed women in selected households in Sila region in 2019.ParticipantsWomen at reproductive age, who have given birth in the previous 2 years and are living in Koukou Angarana and Goz Beida district.Primary outcomesUse of and access barriers to MHS including antenatal care (ANC), delivery care in a health facility (DC), postnatal care (PNC) and contraceptive methods.ResultsIn total, 624 women participated. Median age was 28 years, 95.4% were illiterate and 95.7% married. Use of ANC, DC and PNC was reported by 57.6% (95% CI: 49.3% to 65.5%), 22.5% (95% CI: 15.7% to 31.1%) and 32.9% (95% CI: 25.8% to 40.9%), respectively. Use of MHS was lower in rural compared with urban settings. Having attended ANC increased the odds of using DC by 4.3 (1.5–12.2) and using PNC by 6.4 (3.7–11.1). Factors related to transport and to culture and belief were the most frequently stated access barriers to MHS.ConclusionIn Sila region, use of MHS is low and does not meet WHO-defined standards regarding maternal health. Among all services, use of ANC was better than for other MHS. ANC usage is positively associated with the use of further life-saving MHS including DC and could be used as an entry point to the community. To increase use of MHS, interventions should include infrastructural improvements as well as community-based approaches to overcome access barriers related to culture and belief.

In general, mass gatherings might pose a risk to the public health (PH). The UEFA EURO 2020 tournament (EURO 2020) was one of the first mass gathering events since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Germany. To allow early detection and response to any EURO 2020-associated impact on the COVID-19-related epidemiological situation, we initiated enhanced surveillance activities using the routine surveillance system in collaboration with the regional PH authority of Bavaria. Several preventive measures regarding the attendance of football matches and public viewing were implemented according to state regulations. We describe the results from the enhanced surveillance during the EURO 2020. In total, five cases who had attended a football match in the stadium of Munich, nine cases, who attended a football match in a stadium outside of Germany, and 123 cases in association with public viewing events were identified by enhanced surveillance. Concluding, the EURO 2020 seems to not have had a major impact on the COVID-19 pandemic development in Germany. Health measures for stadium visitors and the restriction of large public viewing events may have potentially contributed to the low case numbers detected, emphasising the need of appropriate PH surveillance and regulations to limit the potential risk to PH during mass gathering events.

Since January 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread to become a global pandemic [1]. Active case finding, early detection and isolation of cases and their contacts are essential for breaking transmission chains. A modelling study showed that 70% of contacts should be traced in order to control the outbreak, assuming a baseline reproduction rate of 2.5 [2]. Early warning systems for the serious cross-border spread of infectious pathogens include the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 and the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) for the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries [3,4]. Within Germany, communication channels have been established in accordance with the German Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz; IfSG). Cross-border contact tracing at the national level is operated by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the federal public health institute in Germany. The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Germany occurred in Bavaria at the end of January 2020 [5]. The first SARS-CoV-2 cluster also led to cross-border contacts and exposures on flights since close contacts and suspected cases travelled to Austria and Spain after exposure. This required intensive international communication to identify and share the information on contacts with the responsible health authorities. An international communication and contact tracing team (RKI IC-Team) was rapidly created in the RKI COVID-19 Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) including members of all units of the department for infectious disease epidemiology and other departments at the RKI. The core task of the team was to collect and communicate information on confirmed COVID-19 cases and their contacts to other countries in the event of cross-border relevance. In addition, incoming information on German citizens exposed abroad was communicated through the federal state health authorities to the responsible local health authorities in Germany. The spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany triggered the introduction of various measures: (i) mass gatherings with more than 1,000 participants were banned after calendar week 10, (ii) schools and public places were closed in several federal states, (iii) physical distancing measures of at least 1.5 m to another person were recommended, (iv) it was recommended to cancel non-essential travel and (v) quarantine measures for travellers from high risk areas entering Germany were introduced in calendar week 15. Because of the federal structure in Germany, the measures and their implementation varied between the states. This work aimed to describe the extent and course of activities resulting from information on COVID-19 exposure events with a cross-border context. Further, we discuss the challenges experienced and possible workflow improvements.

BACKGROUND Routine rotavirus (RV)-vaccination is recommended in Germany since August 2013. Five years later, we evaluated the recommendation by examining vaccine uptake and the impact on RV-gastroenteritis (RVGE) burden in all age groups and on intussusceptions in infants. METHODS We estimated RV-vaccine uptake in the 2014-2018 birth cohorts using statutory health insurance prescription data. For impact assessment, we analyzed RVGE-surveillance data of the German infectious diseases notification system. We compared age-specific RVGE-incidences of different severity between pre-vaccination (2005/06-2007/08) and routine vaccination period (2013/14-2017/18) calculating incidence rate ratios (IRR) using Poisson regression. To determine the effect on intussusception, we used hospital discharge data (2006-2017) and compared incidences between pre-vaccination and routine vaccination period using Poisson regression. RESULTS Vaccination coverage increased from 59% (2014) to 80% (2018). Incidences of RVGE-outpatient cases, RVGE-hospitalization and nosocomial RVGE among

Methods 2187 study participants of different birth years (1988/89, 94/95, 98/99) but same age group (5-6 years old) were involved in 3 epidemiological studies using questionnaires, clinical examinations and determination of vaccination titer: a cross sectional study (S1) supplemented by the Leipzig part of a multicenter birth cohort study (S2) and a birth cohort study with children at risk for allergy (S3). Based on questionnaires, vaccination certificates and vaccination titer respectively it was distinguished between no, incomplete and full vaccination. All vaccinations recommended by the German Standing Committee on vaccination have been considered, such as vaccinations against tetanus, haemophilus influenca type B, measles etc. Targets were physician diagnosed atopic eczema and any other allergic symptoms.