DISCLAIMER This paper was submitted to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and was posted to the COVID-19 open site, according to the protocol for public health emergencies for international concern as described in Vasee Moorthy et al. (

ObjectivesCOVID-19 may spread rapidly in densely populated urban informal settlements. Kenya swiftly implemented mitigation policies; we assess the economic, social and health-related harm disproportionately impacting women.DesignA prospective longitudinal cohort study with repeated mobile phone surveys in April, May and June 2020.Participants and setting2009 households across five informal settlements in Nairobi, sampled from two previously interviewed cohorts.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes include food insecurity, risk of household violence and forgoing necessary health services due to the pandemic. Gender-stratified linear probability regression models were constructed to determine the factors associated with these outcomes.ResultsBy May, more women than men reported adverse effects of COVID-19 mitigation policies on their lives. Women were 6 percentage points more likely to skip a meal versus men (coefficient: 0.055; 95% CI 0.016 to 0.094), and those who had completely lost their income were 15 percentage points more likely versus those employed (coefficient: 0.154; 95% CI 0.125 to 0.184) to skip a meal. Compared with men, women were 8 percentage points more likely to report increased risk of household violence (coefficient: 0.079; 95% CI 0.028 to 0.130) and 6 percentage points more likely to forgo necessary healthcare (coefficient: 0.056; 95% CI 0.037 to 0.076).ConclusionsThe pandemic rapidly and disproportionately impacted the lives of women. As Kenya reopens, policymakers must deploy assistance to ensure women in urban informal settlements are able to return to work, and get healthcare and services they need to not lose progress on gender equity made to date.

Background Many low- and middle-income countries have implemented control measures against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, it is not clear to what extent these measures explain the low numbers of recorded COVID-19 cases and deaths in Africa. One of the main aims of control measures is to reduce respiratory pathogen transmission through direct contact with others. In this study, we collect contact data from residents of informal settlements around Nairobi, Kenya, to assess if control measures have changed contact patterns, and estimate the impact of changes on the basic reproduction number (R0). Methods We conducted a social contact survey with 213 residents of five informal settlements around Nairobi in early May 2020, 4 weeks after the Kenyan government introduced enhanced physical distancing measures and a curfew between 7 pm and 5 am. Respondents were asked to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, alongside a questionnaire asking about the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined contact patterns by demographic factors, including socioeconomic status. We described the impact of COVID-19 and control measures on income and food security. We compared contact patterns during control measures to patterns from non-pandemic periods to estimate the change in R0. Results We estimate that control measures reduced physical contacts by 62% and non-physical contacts by either 63% or 67%, depending on the pre-COVID-19 comparison matrix used. Masks were worn by at least one person in 92% of contacts. Respondents in the poorest socioeconomic quintile reported 1.5 times more contacts than those in the richest. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported a total or partial loss of income due to COVID-19, and 74% reported eating less or skipping meals due to having too little money for food. Conclusion COVID-19 control measures have had a large impact on direct contacts and therefore transmission, but have also caused considerable economic and food insecurity. Reductions in R0 are consistent with the comparatively low epidemic growth in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries that implemented similar, early control measures. However, negative and inequitable impacts on economic and food security may mean control measures are not sustainable in the longer term.

The government of Kenya has launched a phased rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. A major barrier is vaccine hesitancy; the refusal or delay of accepting vaccination. This study evaluated the level and determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional study administered through a phone-based survey in February 2021 in four counties of Kenya. Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify individual perceived risks and influences, context-specific factors and vaccine-specific issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Kenya was high: 36.5%. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy included: Rural regions, perceived difficulty in adhering to government regulations on COVID-19 prevention, no perceived COVID-19 infection risk, concerns regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, and religious and cultural reasons. There is a need for the prioritization of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine confidence as part of the vaccine roll-out plan. These messaging and/or interventions should be holistic to include the value of other public health measures, be focused and targeted to specific groups, raise awareness on the risks of COVID-19 and effectively communicate the benefits and risks of vaccines.

Background Many low- and middle-income countries have implemented control measures against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, it is not clear to what extent these measures explain the low numbers of recorded COVID-19 cases and deaths in Africa. One of the main aims of control measures is to reduce respiratory pathogen transmission through direct contact with others. In this study we collect contact data from residents of informal settlements around Nairobi, Kenya to assess if control measures have changed contact patterns, and estimate the impact of changes on the basic reproduction number (R0). Methods We conducted a social contact survey with 213 residents of five informal settlements around Nairobi in early May 2020, four weeks after the Kenyan government introduced enhanced physical distancing measures and a curfew between 7pm and 5am. Respondents were asked to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, alongside a questionnaire asking about the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined contact patterns by demographic factors, including socioeconomic status. We described the impact of COVID-19 and control measures on income and food security. We compared contact patterns during control measures to patterns from non-pandemic periods to estimate the change in R0. Findings We estimate that control measures reduced physical and non-physical contacts, reducing the R0 from around 2.6 to between 0.5 and 0.7, depending on the pre-COVID-19 comparison matrix used. Masks were worn by at least one person in 92% of contacts. Respondents in the poorest socioeconomic quintile reported 1.5 times more contacts than those in the richest. 86% of respondents reported a total or partial loss of income due to COVID-19, and 74% reported eating less or skipping meals due to having too little money for food. Interpretation COVID-19 control measures have had a large impact on direct contacts and therefore transmission, but have also caused considerable economic and food insecurity. Reductions in R0 are consistent with the linear epidemic growth in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries that implemented similar, early control measures. However, negative and inequitable impacts on economic and food security may mean control measures are not sustainable in the longer term.

BackgroundDespite large reductions in malaria burden across Zambia, some regions continue to experience extremely high malaria transmission. In Nchelenge District, Luapula Province, northern Zambia, almost half the human population carries parasites. Intervention coverage has increased substantially over the past decade, but comprehensive district-wide entomological studies to guide delivery of vector control measures are lacking. This study describes the bionomics and spatio-temporal patterns of malaria vectors in Nchelenge over a two and a half year period, investigates what household factors are associated with high vector densities and determines why vector control may not have been effective in the past to better guide future control efforts.MethodsBetween April 2012 and September 2014, twenty-seven households from across Nchelenge District were randomly selected for monthly light trap collections of mosquitoes. Anopheline mosquitoes were identified morphologically and molecularly to species. Foraging rates were estimated and sporozoite rates were determined by circumsporozoite ELISAs to calculate annual entomological inoculation rates. Blood feeding rates and host preference were determined by PCR. Zero-inflated negative binomial models measured environmental and household factors associated with mosquito abundance at study households such as season, proximity to the lake, and use of vector control measures.ResultsThe dominant species in Nchelenge was An. funestus (s.s.) with An. gambiae (s.s.) as a secondary vector. Both vectors were found together in large numbers across the district and the combined EIRs of the two vectors exceeded 80 infectious bites per person per annum. An. funestus household densities increased in the dry season whilst An. gambiae surged during the rains. Presence of insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and closed eaves in the houses were found to be associated with fewer numbers of An. gambiae but not An. funestus. There was no association with indoor residual spraying (IRS).ConclusionIn Nchelenge, the co-existence of two highly anthropophagic vectors, present throughout the year, is likely to be driving the high malaria transmission evident in the district. The vectors here have been shown to be highly resistant to pyrethroids used for IRS during the study. Vector control interventions in this area would have to be multifaceted and district-wide for effective control of malaria.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-016-1786-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAs malaria transmission declines in many regions of sub-Saharan Africa, interventions to identify the asymptomatic reservoir are being deployed with the goals of improving surveillance and interrupting transmission. Reactive case detection strategies, in which individuals with clinical malaria are followed up at their home and household residents and neighbours are screened and treated for malaria, are increasingly used as part of malaria elimination programmes.MethodsA reactive screen-and-treat programme was implemented by the National Malaria Control Centre in Southern Province, Zambia, in which individuals residing within 140 m of an index case were screened with a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and treated if positive. The operational challenges during the early stages of implementing this reactive screen-and-treat programme in the catchment area of Macha Hospital in Southern Province, Zambia were assessed using rural health centre records, ground truth evaluation of community health worker performance, and data from serial cross-sectional surveys. The proportion of individuals infected with Plasmodium falciparum who were identified and treated was estimated by simulating reactive screen-and-treat and focal drug administration cascades.ResultsWithin the 1st year of implementation, community health workers followed up 32 % of eligible index cases. When index cases were followed up, 66 % of residents were at home in the index households and 58 % in neighbouring households. Forty-one neighbouring households of 26 index households were screened, but only 13 (32 %) were within the 140-m screening radius. The parasite prevalence by RDT was 22 % in index households and 5 % in neighbouring households. In a simulation model with complete follow-up, 22 % of the total infected population would be detected with reactive screen-and-treat but 57 % with reactive focal drug administration.ConclusionsWith limited resources, coverage and diagnostic tools, reactive screen-and-treat will likely not be sufficient to achieve malaria elimination in this setting. However, high coverage with reactive focal drug administration could be efficient at decreasing the reservoir of infection and should be considered as an alternative strategy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1460-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe scale-up of malaria control interventions has resulted in substantial declines in transmission in some but not all regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding factors associated with persistent malaria transmission despite control efforts may guide targeted interventions to high-risk areas and populations.MethodsHousehold malaria surveys were conducted in Nchelenge District, Luapula Province, in northern Zambia. Structures that appeared to be households were enumerated from a high-resolution satellite image and randomly sampled for enrollment. Households were enrolled into cross-sectional (single visit) or longitudinal (visits every other month) cohorts but analyses were restricted to cross-sectional visits and the first visit to longitudinal households. During study visits, a questionnaire was administered to adults and caretakers of children and a blood sample was collected for a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) from all household residents. Characteristics associated with RDT positivity were analyzed using multi-level models.ResultsA total of 2,486 individuals residing within 742 households were enrolled between April 2012 and July 2015. Over this period, 51% of participants were RDT positive. Forty-three percent of all RDT positive individuals were between the ages of 5 and 17 years although this age group comprised only 30% of study participants. In a multivariable model, the odds being RDT positive were highest in 5–17 year olds and did not vary by season. Children 5–17 years of age had 8.83 higher odds of being RDT positive compared with those >18 years of age (95% CI: 6.13, 12.71); there was an interaction between age and report of symptoms, with an almost 50% increased odds of report of symptoms with decreasing age category (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.11, 2.00).ConclusionsChildren and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 17 were at the highest risk of malaria infection throughout the year. School-based programs may be effective at targeting this high-risk group.