This paper highlights the major challenges and considerations for addressing COVID-19 in informal settlements. It discusses what is known about vulnerabilities and how to support local protective action. There is heightened concern about informal urban settlements because of the combination of population density and inadequate access to water and sanitation, which makes standard advice about social distancing and washing hands implausible. There are further challenges to do with the lack of reliable data and the social, political and economic contexts in each setting that will influence vulnerability and possibilities for action. The potential health impacts of COVID-19 are immense in informal settlements, but if control measures are poorly executed these could also have severe negative impacts. Public health interventions must be balanced with social and economic interventions, especially in relation to the informal economy upon which many poor urban residents depend. Local residents, leaders and community-based groups must be engaged and resourced to develop locally appropriate control strategies, in partnership with local governments and authorities. Historically, informal settlements and their residents have been stigmatized, blamed, and subjected to rules and regulations that are unaffordable or unfeasible to adhere to. Responses to COVID-19 should not repeat these mistakes. Priorities for enabling effective control measures include: collaborating with local residents who have unsurpassed knowledge of relevant spatial and social infrastructures, strengthening coordination with local governments, and investing in improved data for monitoring the response in informal settlements.

IntroductionPower relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience ‘power’, and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships.MethodsFive online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the ‘Social Ecology of Power’ framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level.ResultsA total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and ‘traditional’ research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships.ConclusionsThe ‘Social Ecology of Power’ framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.

BackgroundVolunteer community health workers (CHWs) are an important link between the public health system and the community. The ‘Community Participation Policy for Health’ in Cambodia identifies CHWs as key to local health promotion and as a critical link between district health centres and the community. However, research on the challenges CHWs face and identifying what is required to optimise their performance is limited in the Cambodian context. This research explores the views of CHWs in rural Cambodia, on the challenges they face when implementing health initiatives.MethodsQualitative methodology was used to capture the experiences of CHWs in Kratie and Mondulkiri provinces. Two participatory focus groups with CHWs in Mondulkiri and ten semi-structured interviews in Kratie were conducted. Results from both studies were used to identify common themes. Participants were CHWs, male and female, from rural Khmer and Muslim communities and linked with seven different district health centres.ResultsFindings identify that CHWs regularly deliver health promotion to communities. However, systemic, personal and community engagement challenges hinder their ability to function effectively. These include minimal leadership and support from local government, irregular training which focuses on verticalised health programmes, inadequate resources, a lack of professional identity and challenges to achieving behaviour change of community members. In addition, the CHW programme is delivered in a fragmented way that is largely influenced by external aid objectives. When consulted, however, CHWs demonstrate their ability to develop realistic practical solutions to challenges and barriers.ConclusionsThe fragmented delivery of the CHW programme in Cambodia means that government ownership is minimal. This, coupled with the lack of defined core training programme or adequate resources, prevents CHWs from reaching their potential. CHWs have positive and realistic ideas on how to improve their role and, subsequently, the health of community members. CHWs presented with the opportunity to share learning and develop ideas in a supportive environment would benefit health initiatives.

BackgroundThe control and elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) is dependent on mass administration of medicines (MAM) in communities and schools by community drug distributers (CDDs) who are supported and supervised by health facility staff (FLHF) and teachers. Understanding how to motivate, retain and optimise their performance is essential to ensure communities accept medicines. This study aimed to capture and translate knowledge, problems and solutions, identified by implementers, to enhance NTD programme delivery at the community level in Nigeria.MethodsQualitative data was collected through participatory stakeholder workshops organised around two themes: (i) identification of problems and (ii) finding solutions. Eighteen problem-focused workshops and 20 solution-focussed workshops were held with FLHF, CDDs and teachers in 12 purposively selected local government areas (LGA) across two states in Nigeria, Ogun and Kaduna States.ResultThe problems and solutions identified by frontline implementers were organised into three broad themes: technical support, social support and incentives. Areas identified for technical support included training, supervision, human resource management and workload, equipment and resources and timing of MAM implementation. Social support needs were for more equitable drug distributor selection processes, effective community sensitisation mechanisms and being associated with the health system. Incentives identified were both non-financial and financial including receiving positive community feedback and recognition and monetary remuneration. The results led to the development of the ‘NTD frontline implementer’s framework’ which was adapted from the Community Health Worker (CHW) Generic Logic Model by Naimoli et al. (Hum Resour Health 12:56, 2014).ConclusionMaximising performance of frontline implementers is key to successful attainment of NTD goals and other health interventions. As NTDs are viewed as a ‘litmus test’ for universal health coverage, the lessons shared here could cut across programmes aiming to achieve equitable coverage. It is critical to strengthen the collaboration between health systems and communities so that together they can jointly provide the necessary support for frontline implementers to deliver health for all. This research presents additional evidence that involving frontline implementers in the planning and implementation of health interventions through regular feedback before, during and after implementation has the potential to strengthen health outcomes.

BackgroundOnchocerciasis is a priority neglected tropical disease targeted for elimination by 2025. The standard strategy to combat onchocerciasis is annual Community-Directed Treatment with ivermectin (CDTi). Yet, high prevalence rates and transmission persist following > 12 rounds in South-West Cameroon. Challenges include programme coverage, adherence to, and acceptability of ivermectin in an area of Loa loa co-endemicity. Loiasis patients harbouring heavy infections are at risk of potentially fatal serious adverse events following CDTi. Alternative strategies are therefore needed to achieve onchocerciasis elimination where CDTi effectiveness is suboptimal.Methods/designWe designed an implementation study to evaluate integrating World Health Organisation-endorsed alternative strategies for the elimination of onchocerciasis, namely test-and-treat with the macrofilaricide, doxycycline (TTd), and ground larviciding for suppression of blackfly vectors with the organophosphate temephos. A community-based controlled before-after intervention study will be conducted among > 2000 participants in 20 intervention (Meme River Basin) and 10 control (Indian River Basin) communities. The primary outcome measure is O. volvulus prevalence at follow-up 18-months post-treatment. The study involves four inter-disciplinary components: parasitology, entomology, applied social sciences and health economics. Onchocerciasis skin infection will be diagnosed by skin biopsy and Loa loa infection will be diagnosed by parasitological examination of finger-prick blood samples. A simultaneous clinical skin disease assessment will be made. Eligible skin-snip-positive individuals will be offered directly-observed treatment for 5 weeks with 100 mg/day doxycycline. Transmission assessments of onchocerciasis in the communities will be collected post-human landing catch of the local biting blackfly vector prior to ground larviciding with temephos every week (0.3 l/m3) until biting rate falls below 5/person/day. Qualitative research, including in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions will be used to assess acceptability and feasibility of the implemented alternative strategies among intervention recipients and providers. Health economics will assess the cost-effectiveness of the implemented interventions.ConclusionsUsing a multidisciplinary approach, we aim to assess the effectiveness of TTd, alone or in combination with ground larviciding, following a single intervention round and scrutinise the acceptability and feasibility of implementing at scale in similar hotspots of onchocerciasis infection, to accelerate onchocerciasis elimination.