Search

Responsive primary health-care facilities are the foundation of resilient health systems, yet little is known about facility-level processes that contribute to the continuity of essential services during a crisis. This paper describes the aspects of primary health-care facility resilience to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in eight countries. Rapid-cycle phone surveys were conducted with health facility managers in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria between August 2020 and December 2021. Responses were mapped to a validated health facility resilience framework and coded as binary variables for whether a facility demonstrated capacity in eight areas: removing barriers to accessing services, infection control, workforce, surge capacity, financing, critical infrastructure, risk communications, and medical supplies and equipment. These self-reported capacities were summarized nationally and validated with the ministries of health. The analysis of service volume data determined the outcome: maintenance of essential health services. Of primary health-care facilities, 1,453 were surveyed. Facilities maintained between 84% and 97% of the expected outpatient services, except for Bangladesh, where 69% of the expected outpatient consultations were conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. For Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea and Nigeria, critical infrastructure was the largest constraint in resilience capabilities (47%, 14%, 51%, 9% and 29% of facilities demonstrated capacity, respectively). Medical supplies and equipment were the largest constraints for Liberia and Malawi (15% and 48% of facilities demonstrating capacity, respectively). In Bangladesh, the largest constraint was workforce and staffing, where 44% of facilities experienced moderate to severe challenges with human resources during the pandemic. The largest constraints in facility resilience during COVID-19 were related to health systems building blocks. These challenges likely existed before the pandemic, suggesting the need for strategic investments and reforms in core capacities of comprehensive primary health-care systems to improve resilience to future shocks., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Availability and appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is of particular importance in Low and Middle-Income countries (LMICs) where disease outbreaks other than COVID-19 are frequent and health workers are scarce. This study assesses the availability of necessary PPE items during the COVID-19 pandemic at health facilities in seven LMICs., Methods: Data were collected using a rapid-cycle survey among 1554 health facilities in seven LMICs via phone-based surveys between August 2020 and December 2021. We gathered data on the availability of World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended PPE items and the use of items when examining patients suspected to be infected with COVID-19. We further investigated the implementation of service adaptation measures in a severe shortage of PPE., Results: There were major deficiencies in PPE availability at health facilities. Almost 3 out of 10 health facilities reported a stock-out of medical masks on the survey day. Forty-six percent of facilities did not have respirator masks, and 16% did not have any gloves. We show that only 43% of health facilities had sufficient PPE to comply with WHO guidelines. Even when all items were available, healthcare workers treating COVID-19 suspected patients were reported to wear all the recommended equipment in only 61% of health facilities. We did not find a statistically significant difference in implementing service adaptation measures between facilities experiencing a severe shortage or not., Conclusion: After more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall availability of PPE remained low in our sample of low and middle-income countries. Although essential, the availability of PPE did not guarantee the proper use of the equipment. The lack of PPE availability and improper use of available PPE enable preventable COVID-19 transmission in health facilities, leading to greater morbidity and mortality and risking the continuity of service delivery by healthcare workers., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright: © 2023 Drouard et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier in mitigating the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The willingness of health care workers (HCWs) to be vaccinated, and, in turn, recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for their patient population is an important strategy. This study aims to understand the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy among facility-based health care workers (HCWs) in LMICs., Methods: We conducted nationally representative phone-based rapid-cycle surveys across facilities in six LMICs to better understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We gathered data on vaccine uptake among facility managers, their perceptions of vaccine uptake and hesitancy among the HCWs operating in their facilities, and their perception of vaccine hesitancy among the patient population served by the facility., Results: 1,148 unique public health facilities participated in the study, with vaccines being almost universally offered to facility-based respondents across five out of six countries. Among facility respondents who have been offered the vaccine, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents had already been vaccinated at the time of data collection. Vaccine uptake among other HCWs at the facility was similarly high. Over 90% of facilities in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, and Nigeria reported that all or most staff had already received the COVID-19 vaccine when the survey was conducted. Concerns about side effects predominantly drive vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the patient population., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the opportunity to get vaccinated in participating public facilities is almost universal. We find vaccine hesitancy among facility-based HCWs, as reported by respondents, to be very low. This suggests that a potentially effective effort to increase vaccine uptake equitably would be to channel promotional activities through health facilities and HCWs.However, reasons for hesitancy, even if limited, are far from uniform across countries, highlighting the need for audience-specific messaging., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Baral et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)