scispace - formally typeset
Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18052525

Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention Measures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Results of Two Consecutive Online Surveys.

04 Mar 2021-International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI))-Vol. 18, Iss: 5, pp 2525
Abstract: Adherence to preventive measures is essential to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Two online surveys were conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 23 April to 8 June 2020, and from August 24th to September 8th, respectively. A total of 3268 (round 1) and 4160 (round 2) participants were included. In both surveys, there was a moderate level of adherence to regular handwashing (85% and 77%, respectively), wearing of facemasks (41.4% and 69%, respectively), and respecting physical distancing (58% and 43.4%, respectively). The second survey found that, working in private (OR = 2.31, CI: 1.66-3.22; p < 0.001) and public organizations (OR = 1.61, CI: 1.04-2.49; p = 0.032) and being a healthcare worker (OR = 2.19, CI: 1.57-3.05; p < 0.001) significantly increased the odds for better adherence. However, a unit increase in age (OR = 0.99, CI: 0.98-0.99; p < 0.026), having attained lower education levels (OR = 0.60, CI: 0.46-0.78; p < 0.001), living in a room (OR = 0.36, CI: 0.15-0.89; p = 0.027), living in a studio (OR = 0.26, CI: 0.11-0.61; p = 0.002) and apartment (OR = 0.29, CI: 0.10-0.82; p = 0.019) significantly decreased the odds for better adherence. We recommend a multi-sectorial approach to monitor and respond to the pandemic threat. While physical distancing may be difficult in Africa, it should be possible to increase the use of facemasks.

... read more

Citations
  More

6 results found


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18115834
Abstract: The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2-3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene.

... read more

1 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18168300
Abstract: The main challenge of interventions in penitentiary institutions is the re-education and reintegration of inmates, i.e., that inmates have the intention and ability to live law-abiding lives. Therefore, an increase in self-control or, on the contrary, the decrease or elimination of impulsive versus compulsive behaviors becomes necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the role of impulsivity versus compulsivity in treatment adherence in the prison population. The study included 134 men from the Penitentiary Center of Granada who were divided into two groups. Group 1 was considered treatment adherent, and Group 2 was considered non-adherent to treatment. The following instruments were used: Symptom Inventory (SCL-90-R), Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI), Impulsivity Scale (UPPS-P), and Compulsive Belief Questionnaire (OBQ-44). Statistically significant differences were found in impulsivity in the dimensions of negative urgency, sensation seeking, and positive urgency, with higher scores in all cases for the non-adherent group than for the adherent group. We also found statistically significant differences in responsibility/inhibition, perfectionism/uncertainty, and importance/control, with higher scores for the non-adherent group compared to the adherent group. Treatment adherence is inversely related to impulsive and compulsive behaviors.

... read more

Topics: Impulsivity (58%), Sensation seeking (51%)

1 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/IJERPH182010901
Lu Wang1, Jie Yu1, Dongmei Chen2, Lixia Yang1Institutions (2)
Abstract: The effectiveness of public health measures in containing an infectious disease largely depends on how the general public is taking the prevention practices in daily lives. Previous studies have shown that different risk perceptions and sociodemographic characteristics may lead to vastly different prevention behaviors. This paper applies a temporal perspective in examining the changing patterns of prevention practices over time and their dynamic relationships with the perceived risk towards COVID-19 and its individual characteristics. Three key timelines (February, April, and June of 2020) were identified to represent the early, lockdown, and reopening stages of the first wave. Data were drawn from an online survey conducted in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) of Canada (n = 470). Chi-square tests and logistic regression models revealed important temporal patterns in practicing different hygienic and mobility-related prevention measures and the respondents’ risk perceptions during the three timelines. The factors predicting the level of prevention practices vary across the three timelines, based on the specific type of prevention, and within the changing public health contexts. This study contributes to the literature on COVID-19 by incorporating a temporal perspective in conceptualizing prevention predictors. It provides crucial insights for developing timely public health strategies to improve infectious disease prevention at different stages and for individuals with varying backgrounds.

... read more

Topics: Risk perception (53%), Public health (51%)


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18105108
Abstract: Intimate Partners' Violence (IPV) is a public health problem with long-lasting mental and physical health consequences for victims and their families. As evidence has been increasing that COVID-19 lockdown measures may exacerbate IPV, our study sought to describe the magnitude of IPV in women and identify associated determinants. An online survey was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) from 24 August to 8 September 2020. Of the 4160 respondents, 2002 eligible women were included in the data analysis. Their mean age was 36.3 (SD: 8.2). Most women (65.8%) were younger than 40 years old. Prevalence of any form of IPV was 11.7%. Being in the 30-39 and >50 years' age groups (OR = 0.66, CI: 0.46-0.95; p = 0.026 and OR = 0.23, CI: 0.11-048; p < 0.001, respectively), living in urban setting (OR = 0.63, CI: 0.41-0.99; p = 0.047), and belonging to the middle socioeconomic class (OR = 0.48, CI: 0.29-0.79; p = 0.003) significantly decreased the odds for experiencing IPV. Lower socioeconomic status (OR = 1.84, CI: 1.04-3.24; p = 0.035) and being pregnant (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.16-2.29; p = 0.005) or uncertain of pregnancy status (OR = 2.01, CI: 1.17-3.44; p = 0.011) significantly increased the odds for reporting IPV. Additional qualitative research is needed to identify the underlying reasons and mechanisms of IPV in order to develop and implement prevention interventions.

... read more


References
  More

24 results found


Open accessBook
01 Jan 1990-
Abstract: Two--Way Contingency Tables. Three--Way Contingency Tables. Generalized Linear Models. Logistic Regression. Loglinear Models for Contingency Tables. Building and Applying Logit and Loglinear Models. Multicategory Logit Models. Models for Matched Pairs. A Twentieth--Century Tour of Categorical Data Analysis. Appendix. Table of Chi--Squared Distribution Values for Various Right--Tail Probabilities. Bibliography. Indexes.

... read more

Topics: Categorical variable (60%), Contingency table (57%), Log-linear analysis (56%) ... read more

6,611 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1056/NEJMOA2034577
Abstract: Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a world...

... read more

4,222 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
Derek K. Chu1, Elie A. Akl2, Elie A. Akl1, Stephanie Duda1  +38 moreInstitutions (3)
27 Jun 2020-The Lancet
Abstract: Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.

... read more

Topics: Absolute risk reduction (50%), Meta-analysis (50%)

1,869 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1056/NEJMOA2027906
Edward E. Walsh1, Robert W. Frenck2, Ann R. Falsey3, Ann R. Falsey1  +22 moreInstitutions (7)
Abstract: Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have spread to millions of persons worldw...

... read more

Topics: Coronavirus (67%), Immunogenicity (52%)

990 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1
M N Ramasamy1, Angela M. Minassian1, Katie J. Ewer1, Amy Flaxman1  +60 moreInstitutions (5)
19 Dec 2020-The Lancet
Abstract: Summary Background Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. Methods In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18–55 years, 56–69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18–55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56–69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5–6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18–55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. Findings Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18–55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56–69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18–55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56–69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18–55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56–69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18–55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898–33 550], n=39; 56–69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233–40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705–37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18–55 years, 193 [IQR 113–238], n=39; 56–69 years, 144 [119–347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73–323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18–55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841–2428], n=24; 56–69 years: 797 SFCs [383–1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458–1914], n=48). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

... read more

555 Citations