Search

IntroductionUpon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Laboratory Support Unit (ZIG4) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German National Public Health Institute, developed and delivered an online training on SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics to 17 partner countries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This article analyses the usefulness and cost savings of this training.MethodsThe authors performed a concurrent mixed-methodology study based on key informant interviews, interviewer-administered questionnaires, and document reviews. Economic costs were estimated from the perspective of RKI.ResultsResponding participants indicated that the course provided good and comprehensive information on up-to-date scientific knowledge and laboratory practice in PCR diagnostics. Respondents appreciated how the technical content of the training enhanced their ability to apply diagnostic methods in their daily work. Interviewees highlighted that the fast implementation and the low threshold of attending an online training had allowed them to quickly build skills that were crucial during, and beyond, the COVID-19 crisis. The total estimated cost of the online SARS-CoV-2 qPCR training was 61,644 euros. The total estimated cost of the equivalent face-to-face training was estimated at 267,592 euros. Programme weaknesses identified included the top-down approaches taken, lack of interactive components and opportunities to directly engage with other course participants and with teachers.ConclusionsAn online training was developed and implemented to support RKI partner countries in SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby strengthening pandemic response and health system resilience. The training incurred in important cost savings compared to the equivalent face-to-face training. Post-pandemic studies could usefully build on these research findings and explore ways to enhance end user involvement and improve interactive features to build stronger communities of learners and facilitate exchange of information and mutual learning.

Abstract Background During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people’s perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. Results This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people’s assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). Conclusion We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

BackgroundEmergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE).MethodsTo map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results.ResultsWe identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies.ConclusionWe found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.