An epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) beginning in 2013 has claimed an estimated 11 310 lives in West Africa. As the EVD epidemic subsides, it is important for all who participated in the emergency Ebola response to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of the response. Such reflections should take into account perspectives not usually included in peer-reviewed publications and after-action reports, including those from the public sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), survivors of Ebola, and Ebola-affected households and communities. In this article, we first describe how the international NGO Partners In Health (PIH) partnered with the Government of Sierra Leone and Wellbody Alliance (a local NGO) to respond to the EVD epidemic in 4 of the country's most Ebola-affected districts. We then describe how, in the aftermath of the epidemic, PIH is partnering with the public sector to strengthen the health system and resume delivery of regular health services. PIH's experience in Sierra Leone is one of multiple partnerships with different stakeholders. It is also one of rapid deployment of expatriate clinicians and logistics personnel in health facilities largely deprived of health professionals, medical supplies, and physical infrastructure required to deliver health services effectively and safely. Lessons learned by PIH and its partners in Sierra Leone can contribute to the ongoing discussion within the international community on how to ensure emergency preparedness and build resilient health systems in settings without either.
Despite over 28,000 reported cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the 2013–16 outbreak in West Africa, we are only beginning to trace the complex biosocial processes that have promoted its spread. Important questions remain, including the effects on survivors of clinical sequelae, loss of family and livelihood, and other psychological and social trauma. Another poorly understood question is what effect social protection and job creation programs have had on survivors’ wellbeing. Several clinical and social protection programs have been developed to respond to the needs of EVD survivors; however, little in the way of impact evaluation has taken place. We enrolled 200 randomly selected EVD survivors from Port Loko, Kenema, and Kailahun districts in Sierra Leone and stratified them based on the amount of instrumental social protection received post-discharge from an Ebola treatment unit. We then conducted a survey and in-depth interviews to assess participants’ wellbeing and food security. Social protection categories II-IV (moderate to extensive) were each significantly associated with ~15–22% higher wellbeing scores compared to minimal social protection (p<0.001). Only social protection category IV (extensive) was significantly associated with being food secure (adjusted odds ratio 6.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.85–13.10) when compared to minimal social protection. Qualitative themes included having a sense of purpose during the crisis (work and fellowship helped survivors cope); using cash transfers to invest in business; the value of literacy and life-skills classes; loss of breadwinners (survivors with jobs were able to take over that role); and combating the consequences of stigma. We conclude that, for EVD survivors, short-term social protection during the vulnerable period post-discharge can pay dividends two years later. Based on the empiric evidence presented, we discuss how terms such as “outbreak” and “epidemic” do symbolic violence by creating the illusion that social suffering ends when transmission of a pathogen ceases.
Studies have yet to include minimally symptomatic Ebola virus (EBOV) infections and unrecognized Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Ebola-related transmission chains and epidemiologic risk estimates. We conducted a cross-sectional, sero-epidemiological survey from October 2015 to January 2016 among 221 individuals living in quarantined households from November 2014 to February 2015 during the Ebola outbreak in the village of Sukudu, Sierra Leone. Of 48 EBOV-infected persons, 25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-40%) had minimally symptomatic EBOV infections and 4% (95% CI, 1%-14%) were unrecognized EVD cases. The pattern of minimally symptomatic EBOV infections in the transmission chain was nonrandom (P < .001, permutation test). Not having lived in the same house as an EVD case was significantly associated with minimally symptomatic infection. This is the first study to investigate a chain of EBOV transmission inclusive of minimally symptomatic EBOV infections and unrecognized EVD. Our findings provide new insights into Ebola transmission dynamics and quarantine practices.
Studies have shown that people suffering from food insecurity are at higher risk for infectious and noncommunicable diseases and have poorer health outcomes. No study, however, has examined the association between food insecurity and outcomes related to Ebola virus disease (EVD). We conducted a cross-sectional study in two Ebola-affected communities in Kono district, Sierra Leone, from November 2015 to September 2016. We enrolled persons who were determined to have been exposed to Ebola virus. We assessed the association of food insecurity, using an adapted version of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, a nine-item scale well validated across Africa, with having been diagnosed with EVD and having died of EVD, using logistic regression models with cluster-adjusted standard errors. We interviewed 326 persons who were exposed to Ebola virus; 61 (19%) were diagnosed with EVD and 45/61 (74%) died. We found high levels (87%) of food insecurity, but there was no association between food insecurity and having been diagnosed with EVD. Among EVD cases, those who were food insecure had 18.3 times the adjusted odds of death than those who were food secure ( = 0.03). This is the first study to demonstrate a potential relationship between food insecurity and having died of EVD, although larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND Guidelines for treatment of central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) recommend removing central venous catheters (CVCs) in many cases. Clinicians must balance these recommendations with the difficulty of obtaining alternate access and subjecting patients to additional procedures. In this study, we evaluated CVC salvage in pediatric patients with ambulatory CLABSI and associated risk factors for treatment failure. METHODS This study was a secondary analysis of 466 ambulatory CLABSIs in patients <22 years old who presented to 5 pediatric medical centers from 2010 to 2015. We defined attempted CVC salvage as a CVC left in place ≥3 days after a positive blood culture result. Salvage failure was removal of the CVC ≥3 days after CLABSI. Successful salvage was treatment of CLABSI without removal of the CVC. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to test associations between risk factors and attempted and successful salvage. RESULTS A total of 460 ambulatory CLABSIs were included in our analysis. CVC salvage was attempted in 379 (82.3%) cases. Underlying diagnosis, CVC type, number of lumens, and absence of candidemia were associated with attempted salvage. Salvage was successful in 287 (75.7%) attempted cases. Underlying diagnosis, CVC type, number of lumens, and absence of candidemia were associated with successful salvage. In patients with malignancy, neutropenia within 30 days before CLABSI was significantly associated with both attempted salvage and successful salvage. CONCLUSIONS CVC salvage was often attempted and was frequently successful in ambulatory pediatric patients presenting with CLABSI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.