Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) poses an important occupational health risk to health workers (HWs) that has attracted global scrutiny. To date, several thousand HWs globally have been reported as infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus that causes the disease. It is therefore a public health priority for policymakers to understand risk factors for this vulnerable group to avert occupational transmission. A rapid review was carried out on 20 April 2020 on Covid-19 risk factors among HWs in PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCOHost Web (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL with Full Text, APA PsycInfo, Health Source—Consumer Edition, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition) and WHO Global Database. We also searched for preprints on the medRxiv database. We searched for reports, reviews, and primary observational studies (case control, case cross-over, cross-sectional, and cohort). The review included studies conducted among HWs with Covid-19 that reported risk factors irrespective of their sample size. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Lack of personal protective equipment, exposure to infected patients, work overload, poor infection control, and preexisting medical conditions were identified as risk factors for Covid-19 among HWs. In the context of Covid-19, HWs face an unprecedented occupational risk of morbidity and mortality. There is need for rapid development of sustainable measures that protect HWs from the pandemic.

Global powerhouses with tried and tested health systems have struggled to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. One is left to wonder what will be left of Africa, the second most populous continent after Asia, which is torn by civil wars, hunger, and diseases like AIDS and TB and, in recent years, the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). The majority of countries' health systems, already dependent on donor aid, are ill-equipped and under-resourced to deal with the raging pandemic. There is a lack of isolation and intensive care infrastructure, ventilators, and financial resources to bankroll the fight against COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is some cause for optimism, for example, in West Africa where infrastructure like diagnostic testing facilities, intensive care units, surveillance, and systems for reporting emergencies used during the EVD outbreak of 2013-2016 can be leveraged to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, a number of African countries have responded swiftly by activating the necessary political and financial tools to combat the pandemic. Technical support from continental bodies like the Africa Centers for Disease Control and global development partners has improved the capacity of the continent to handle the pandemic. In this article, the authors unpack, review, and share a perspective on Africa's capacity to contain and control the COVID-19 pandemic and review the current response.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected over nineteen million people globally with over 700 ​000 fatalities as of 9 August 2020. To date, Africa has recorded the least amount of COVID-19 confirmed cases. As of 9 August 2020, Africa has 1, 037, 135 cases compared to 10, 615, 855 in Americas and 3, 061, 264 in Europe. In this piece, the authors unpack the low numbers of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases in Africa - is it a case of limited testing capacity due to poor health systems or otherwise?

No abstract

Telemedicine is the use of technology to achieve remote care. This review looks at the utility of telemedicine during the pandemic, period March 2020 to February 2021. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. There was moderate use of telemedicine in sub‐Sahara Africa during the pandemic, however, there were also some limitations. Benefits of telemedicine include continuing medical service provision, connecting relatives with loved ones in quarantine, education, and awareness of mental health issues, and toxicovigilance and infection control. Challenges to the implementation of telemedicine on the continent were lack of supporting telemedicine framework and policies, digital barriers, and patient and healthcare personnel biases. To address these challenges, this article proposes the development of policy frameworks that fosters telemedicine use by all stakeholders, including medical insurance organizations, the introduction of telemedicine training of medical workers, educational awareness programs for the public, and improvement of digital platforms access and affordability.

No abstract

Background Evidence on the spectrum of risk factors for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) has not been well-described. While several studies evaluating the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs have been reported since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), and several more are still underway. There is, therefore, an immediate need for an ongoing, rigorous systematic review that continuously assesses the risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among front-line HCWs. Objective Here, we outline a protocol to serve as a guideline for conducting a living systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the burden of COVID-19 on front-line HCWs and identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs. Methods The protocol was developed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The conduct of the proposed living systematic review and meta-analysis will primarily follow the principles recommended in the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in healthcare, and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The systematic literature searches will be performed using the EBSCOhost platform by searching the following databases within the platform: Academic search complete, health source: nursing/academic edition, CINAHL with full text, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct databases, Google Scholar, and; also a search in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the World Health Organization library databases for relevant studies will be performed. The searches will include peer-reviewed articles, published in English and Mandarin language irrespective of publication year, evaluating the risk for testing positive for C0VID-19, the risk of developing symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, or both, among front-line HCWs. The initial review period will consider articles published since the onset of COVID-19 disease to the present and then updated monthly. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) will be used to pool the odds ratios or mean differences for individual risk factors where possible. Results will be presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences, or standardised mean differences along with 95% confidence intervals, for continuous outcomes. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale will be used to rate study quality, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). The results of the living systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported per the PRISMA guidelines. Discussion Though addressing the needs of front-line HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is a high priority, data to inform such initiatives are inadequate, particularly data on the risk factor disparities between patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs. The proposed living systematic review and meta-analysis anticipate finding relevant studies reporting risk factors driving the SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs, thus providing subsidies for public health interventions and occupational health policies. The study results will be disseminated electronically, in print and through conference presentation, and key stakeholder meetings in the form of policy briefs. Trail registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020193508 available for public comments via the link below https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020193508).

No abstract