Background Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is essential in ensuring population’s access to immunization. Surveys are part of this M&E approach but its timing limits the use of its results to improve the coverage of the evaluated campaign. An oral cholera vaccination campaign was organized in a health district of the Far North region of Cameroon and involved an innovative M&E approach. The aim of this project was to assess the feasibility and effect of using recommendations of a community-based immunization and communication coverage survey conducted after the first round of an OCV campaign on the coverage of the second-round of the campaign. Methods Two community-based surveys were included in the M&E plan and conducted at the end of each of the campaign rounds. Data were collected by trained and closely supervised surveyors and reported using smartphones. Key results of the first-round survey were disseminated to campaign implementing team prior to the second round. The two rounds of the pre-emptive campaign were organized by the Cameroon Ministry of Public Health and partners with a two-week interval in the Mogode Health District of the Far North region of Cameroon in May and June 2017. Results Of 120 targeted clusters, 119 (99.1%) and 117 (97.5%) were reached for the first and second rounds respectively. Among the Mogode population eligible for vaccination, the immunization coverage based on evidence (card or finger mark) were estimated at 81.0% in the first round and increased to 88.8% in the second round (X2=69.0 and p <0.00). For the second round, we estimated 80.1% and 4.3% of persons who were administered 2 doses and 1 dose of OCV with evidence respectively, and 3.8% of persons who have not been vaccinated. The distribution of campaign communication coverage per health area was shared with the campaign coordination team for better planning of the second round campaign activities. Conclusions It is feasible to plan and implement coverage survey after first round OCV campaign and use its results for the better planning of the second round. For the present study, this is associated to the improvement of OCV coverage in the second-round vaccination. If this is persistent in other contexts, it may apply to improve coverage of any health campaign that is organized in more than one round.

Background Researchers are responsible for the protection of health research participants. The purpose of this study was to identify and prioritize the training needs of researchers involved in human health research in Cameroon. Methods It was a cross-sectional study conducted in all the Cameroon regions in the last quarter of 2020. It targeted researchers involved in human health research selected by systematic stratified sampling from health and training institutions, and health facilities. Data were collected using a face-to-face administered questionnaire deployed in Smartphones via the ODK-collect. The distribution of participants’ exposure to research ethics training was described as well as their knowledge on the related regulatory texts. A score was used to rank the training needs identified by the participants. Results Of 168 reached participants, 134 (79.76%) participated in the study. A total of 103 (76.87%) researchers reported having received training in human health research ethics and 98 (73.13%) perceived need of training in research ethics. Of those involved in clinical, vaccine, and field trials, 63.64, 33.33, 52.53% have been exposed respectively to related training regarding participants’ protection. Having received at least one training in research ethics significantly increase the proportion of researchers systematically submitting application for ethical evaluation prior to implementation (OR = 3.20 (1.31–7.78)). Training priorities identified by researchers include: guidelines and regulations on health research ethics and research participant’s protection in Cameroon, procedures for evaluating research protocols, protection of research participants in clinical trials, and fundamental ethics principles. Conclusion The coverage of researchers in training regarding research participant protection remains limited in a number of areas including those related to clinical trial participant protection and research participant protection in Cameroon. Improving this coverage and addressing perceived needs of researchers are expected to contribute in improving their ability in playing their role in research participant protection.

Background The capacity of the Research Ethic Committee (REC) members to review research protocol is one of the frequently raised problems. The purpose of this study was to assess training needs of members of research ethics committee in Cameroon regarding research participant protection.Methods It was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in all the regions of Cameroon during the last quarter of the year 2020, assessing training needs of REC members’ ethical evaluation of health research protocols. Data were collected from all eligible REC members by trained and supervised surveyors using a well designed questionnaire integrated in smartphones via ODK-collect. The data were analyzed by estimating proportions with 95% Confidence Interval using the EpiInfo software version 7.2.2.6.Findings Out of the 79 ethics committee members reached, 64 (81.01%) accepted to participate including 28 (43.75) female. The result showed that,21 (32.81%) of ethics committee members were not trained in research ethics evaluation including 68.75% not exposed to training on research participants protection during clinical trials. A given fraction of respondent was not aware of the existence of key national regulations (25%) and international guidelines like the Helsinki Declaration (32.81%). Participants identified and ranked their priorities in terms of training needs in research participant’s protection, national text regulating research in Cameroon, evaluations’ procedures of research protocol, organization of research in Cameroon, and protection of participants in research involving the transfer of biological materials. The workshop and e-learning courses were seen to be the main accessible source of training.Conclusion Not all ethics committee members received training on ethical principles regarding research ethics review, review process and monitoring of research protocols, and on ethical issues associated to each study design including clinical trials. These gaps and the needs perceived by participants are to be taken into account when setting up a training program for RECs members on ethical evaluation in Cameroon.