ObjectivesTo estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective during the early phases of the pandemic.DesignSystematic review.MethodsTwo parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken until 8 May 2020. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. There were no restrictions on language, information sources used, publication status and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist or the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools were used to appraise each source of evidence.Outcome measuresPublication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19-specific data, demographics of affected HCWs and public health measures employed.ResultsA total of 152 888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%, n=14 058) and nurses (38.6%, n=10 706), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%, n=550) and doctors (51.4%, n=525). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.2 deaths reported per 100 infections for HCWs aged over 70 years. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119 628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7).ConclusionsCOVID-19 infections and deaths among HCWs follow that of the general population around the world. The reasons for gender and specialty differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported in Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.

Objectives To estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective. Design Scoping review. Methods Two parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the review and the need to report the most up-to-date information for an ever-evolving situation, there were no restrictions on language, information sources utilised, publication status, and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist was used to appraise each source of evidence. Outcome measures Publication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19 specific data, demographics of affected HCWs, and public health measures employed Results A total of 152,888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%) and nurses (38.6%), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%) and doctors (51.4%). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.17 deaths reported per 100 infections for healthcare workers aged over 70. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7). Conclusions HCW COVID-19 infections and deaths follow that of the general world population. The reasons for gender and speciality differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported from Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high-risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine, or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.

ObjectivesThe Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.ConclusionOur study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%–99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has significantly impacted the global economy, by forcing people to stay indoors and creating a ‘new normal’ of living. Rwanda has made notable efforts to fight the pandemic. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the country’s economy are numerous and the refugees residing in Rwanda are not spared these effects. As of December 2020, 164,000 people were granted refugee status in Rwanda according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The majority were from neighbouring countries in the Great Lakes regions, including DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Burundi. The impact the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy has led to a decline in donations to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), which in turn has significantly reduced the food rations of refugees. Such paucity will no doubt cause unprecedented impacts on the people residing in refugee camps, who completely depend on humanitarian aid to meet their basic food requirements. This lack of access to adequate and affordable food will expose refugees to extreme hunger and starvation, putting their lives in danger by triggering forced returns, infections, social conflicts and thus higher morbidity and mortality.Furthermore, such stressful environments would no doubt put the mental health of these already vulnerable communities at risk. It is unsurprising that refugees are more likely to experience poor mental health compared to local population, including higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is an issue as they are also less likely to receive support than the general population. Refugees in Rwanda are under the responsibility of UNHCR and WFP, who should ensure adequate food assistance is provided to refugees and therefore ameliorate the risks to health that result from food shortages, safeguarding these vulnerable communities.

Objectives: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Vaxzevira) builds on nearly two decades of research and development (R&D) into Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aims to approximate the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. Design: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly-accessible grant databases. We filed Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. Results: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between 01/2002 and 10/2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from funding acknowledgement statements. Government funders from overseas were mentioned 158 (27.4%), the U.K. government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%) times. Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions, amounts were available in the public realm for 121 (21.0%) mentions. Based on the FOIs, until 01/2020, the European Commision (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and CEPI (17.5%) were the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D. From 01/2020, the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care was the single largest funder (89.3%). The identified R&D funding was GBP104,226,076 reported in the FOIs, and GBP228,466,771 reconstructed from the literature search. Conclusions: Our study identified that public funding accounted for 97.1-99.0% of the funding towards the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We furthermore encountered a severe lack of transparency in research funding reporting mechanisms.