Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in extreme strain on health systems including the health workforce, essential health services and vaccination coverage. We examined disruptions to immunisation and maternal and child health (MCH) services, concerns of personal well-being and delivery of healthcare during the pandemic as well as factors associated with self-reported trauma or burnout among healthcare providers (HCPs).Methods In March–April 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among HCPs in two provinces of Indonesia. HCPs involved in COVID-19 or routine immunisation and MCH services were randomly selected from district/city health office registration lists. We descriptively analysed service disruptions experienced by HCPs as well as trauma, burnout and concerns of personal well-being and delivery of healthcare during the pandemic. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were undertaken to identify factors associated with trauma or burnout.Results We recruited 604 HCPs. Mobilisation of staff from routine health services to COVID-19 response duties was a key reason for service disruptions (87.9%). Strategies such as community outreach and task shifting were implemented to overcome disruptions. Trauma or burnout during the pandemic was reported by 64.1% HCPs, with 23.5% reporting worse mental or emotional health.Factors associated with trauma or burnout included delivery of COVID-19 immunisation (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.54, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.94); and delivery of both COVID-19 immunisation and routine immunisation compared with no involvement in vaccination programmes (aOR 2.42, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.52); poor treatment in the workplace (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.38) and lower confidence to respond to patient queries on COVID-19 immunisation (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.22).Conclusion HCPs experienced service disruptions, trauma and burnout and implemented strategies to minimise disruptions to service delivery and improve patient experiences. Our study highlights the need to ensure that workforce resilience and strategies to protect and support HCPs are considered for pandemic planning, preparedness and management.

Increasing countries' access to data can improve immunisation coverage through evidence-based decision-making. However, data collection and reporting is resource-intensive, so needs to be pragmatic, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We aimed to identify which indicators are most important for measuring, and improving, national immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). We conducted an expert elicitation study, asking 13 experts involved in delivering immunisation programs, decision-makers, health information specialists, and global development partners across PICs to rate 41 indicators based on their knowledge of the feasibility and relevance of each indicator. We also asked experts their preferences for indicators to be retained or removed from a list of indicators for PICs. Experts participated in two rating rounds, with a discussion on the reasons for ratings before the second round. We calculated mean scores for feasibility and relevance, and ranked indicators based on experts' preferences and mean scores. We used framework analysis to identify reasons for selecting indicators. Experts agreed that certain indicators were essential to measure (e.g. data use in program planning and measles vaccination coverage), but preferences varied for most indicators. Preferences to include indicators in a set of indicators for PICs moderately correlated with scores for relevance (r = 0.68) and feasibility (r = 0.56). In discussions, experts highlighted usefulness for decision-making and ease of data collection, reporting and interpretation as the main reasons driving indicator selection. Country-specific factors such as health system factors, roles and influence of various immunisation actors, and macro-level factors (namely population size, distribution and mobility) affected relevance and feasibility, leading us to conclude that a single set of indicators for all PICs is inappropriate. Rather than having a strict set of indicators that all countries must measure and report against, performance indicators should be flexible, country-specific, and selected in consultation with immunisation actors who collect and use the data.

Contact tracing and quarantine are valuable public health tools to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and control the epidemic. Many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) adopted global contact tracing and quarantine guidelines but were unable to contextualise the guidance into policies and practices that were relevant to their setting. Therefore, we examine contact tracing policies and practices in the Indo-Pacific region and the need to design context-specific policies. We conducted a mixed-methods study, including a cross-sectional online survey followed by key-informant interviews (KIIs). Using convenience snowball sampling, we invited public health professionals primarily involved in COVID-19 pandemic response from the Indo-Pacific region. We undertook descriptive analyses using counts and percentages for survey data and framework analysis for qualitative data. Seventy-seven public health professionals participated in the survey, of whom ten also participated in the KIIs. The study identified significant gaps between policies and the local contexts. Factors that broaden the gaps were limited knowledge of the changing dynamics of COVID-19 transmission, poor leadership, and coordination, little or no formal training on contact tracing, poor understanding of the guideline recommendations, limited resources, community resistance and mistrust, social stigmatisation and fear of being ostracised, and discrimination. This study revealed substantial disparities between policies and local contexts, significantly influencing policy implementation at national, provincial, and district levels across the studied countries. To bridge these gaps, we advocate for national contact tracing and quarantine guidelines explicitly addressing the quarantine needs of specific demographics, including children, pregnant women, prisoners, and individuals affected by social exclusion issues. Furthermore, we propose strengthening contact tracing training programs, urging revised guidelines to account for social, cultural, and infrastructural nuances influencing contact tracing and quarantine implementation. We also recommend engaging local NGOs, faith-based organisations, and local administrations to reinforce community connections and strengthen contact tracing.