While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March, as a first measure. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. We carried out a mixed-method research. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n = 813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. We conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n = 30). The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25, although not significant (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective. The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.

No abstract

Background: While the first case of COVID-19 was declared on March 2 2020 in Senegal, the government banned the attendance of places of worship on 14 March. On March 23, it introduced a curfew, a ban on movement between regions, and the closure of markets. These measures were lifted in May and June 2020. The objective of this study is to measure and understand the acceptability of these four governmental measures as well as the level of public trust in the state to fight the pandemic. Methods: We carried out a mixed-method research with an explanatory sequential estimate. The acceptability variables were defined using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). At the quantitative level, we carried out a telephone survey (June/July 2020) at the national level (n=813) with a sampling strategy by marginal quotas. To understand these results, we conducted a qualitative survey (August/September 2020) with a nested sample (n=30). Results: The results show a relatively high acceptability of the measures but a heterogeneity of responses. People considered curfews to be much more important (85.7% [83.2%; 88.0%]) than the closure of places of worship (55.4%; [51.9%; 58.7%]), which is least in line with the values and positive affective attitude. With the lifting of certain measures, respondents questioned the consistency of the decisions. Several positive unintended effects of the curfew were stated (security and social/family cohesion). People over the age of 60 have more confidence in the government to fight the pandemic than people under the age of 25 (7.72 ± 3.12 vs. 7.07 ± 3.11, p = 0.1); and they are more in favour of the closure of places of worship. Men have less confidence in the government than women (6.84 ± 3.21 vs. 7.47 ± 3.05; p = 0.001). The more regions are affected by the pandemic, the less confidence respondents report in the government and the less they perceive the measures as effective.Conclusions: The results confirm the importance of government communication and trust in the state to strengthen the acceptability of pandemic measures. Important differences in acceptability show the need to adapt measures and their explanations, instead of unqualified universal action.

No abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends recording vaccination status according to maternal recall in countries where administrative reporting systems are insufficiently reliable, as maternal recall in developing countries has been shown to be quite reliable compared with data from vaccination cards. This study aimed to investigate childhood vaccination coverage and its determinants according to the mothers' presentation of vaccination cards. Methods: The data come from the 2017 Senegalese Demographic and Health Survey, a nationally representative household survey of women aged 15-49 years, with a questionnaire focusing on children's health. This analysis was restricted to children aged 12-35 months (n = 4032) and it assessed vaccination coverage and associated sociodemographic factors with weighted multivariate logistic regressions. Stratified multivariate logistic regressions were also performed to investigate factors associated with routine childhood immunization uptake of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, recommended for administration shortly after birth, as well as of the vaccines against yellow fever and measles (recommended at 9 months). Results: Comparison of vaccination coverage estimates according to the vaccination card or parental recall resulted in a 5-10% difference in estimated coverage for the BCG, pentavalent, measles, and yellow fever vaccines, but a huge difference for the polio vaccine (93.0% with the card, 32.0% without it). Presentation of the vaccination card was correlated with mothers' attendance at health facilities (suggesting it serves as a concrete manifestation of a bond between mothers and the healthcare system) and their region of residence, but it was not correlated with usually strong predictors of childhood vaccination, such as maternal education level. Factors associated with vaccinations differed depending on whether they were administered shortly after birth or later on. Conclusions: Maternal recall was found to be quite reliable except for oral polio vaccination, which raises the possibility that complete immunization coverage rates could have been significantly underestimated due to potential confusion between injection and vaccination. Considering the ability to present vaccination cards as the materialization of a bond with the healthcare system, the decision path leading to vaccination among those who lack such a bond appears longer and more likely to be driven by supply-side effects.