Background The COVID-19 pandemic and country measures to control it can lead to negative indirect health effects. Understanding these indirect health effects is important in informing strategies to mitigate against them. This paper presents an analysis of the indirect health effects of the pandemic in Kenya. Methods We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining the analysis of secondary quantitative data obtained from the Kenya Health Information System database (from January 2019 to November 2020) and a qualitative inquiry involving key informant interviews (n = 12) and document reviews. Quantitative data were analysed using an interrupted time series analysis (using March 2020 as the intervention period). Thematic analysis approach was employed to analyse qualitative data. Results Quantitative findings show mixed findings, with statistically significant reduction in inpatient utilization, and increase in the number of sexual violence cases per OPD visit that could be attributed to COVID-19 and its mitigation measures. Key informants reported that while financing of essential health services and domestic supply chains were not affected, international supply chains, health workforce, health infrastructure, service provision, and patient access were disrupted. However, the negative effects were thought to be transient, with mitigation measures leading to a bounce back. Conclusion Finding from this study provide some insights into the effects of the pandemic and its mitigation measures in Kenya. The analysis emphasizes the value of strategies to minimize these undesired effects, and the critical role that routine health system data can play in monitoring continuity of service delivery.

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.

BackgroundA few studies have assessed the epidemiological impact and the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in settings where most of the population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya from a societal perspective over a 1.5-year time frame. An age-structured transmission model assumed at least 80% of the population to have prior natural immunity when an immune escape variant was introduced. We examine the effect of slow (18 months) or rapid (6 months) vaccine roll-out with vaccine coverage of 30%, 50% or 70% of the adult (>18 years) population prioritising roll-out in those over 50-years (80% uptake in all scenarios). Cost data were obtained from primary analyses. We assumed vaccine procurement at US$7 per dose and vaccine delivery costs of US$3.90–US$6.11 per dose. The cost-effectiveness threshold was US$919.11.FindingsSlow roll-out at 30% coverage largely targets those over 50 years and resulted in 54% fewer deaths (8132 (7914–8373)) than no vaccination and was cost saving (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER=US$−1343 (US$−1345 to US$−1341) per disability-adjusted life-year, DALY averted). Increasing coverage to 50% and 70%, further reduced deaths by 12% (810 (757–872) and 5% (282 (251–317) but was not cost-effective, using Kenya’s cost-effectiveness threshold (US$919.11). Rapid roll-out with 30% coverage averted 63% more deaths and was more cost-saving (ICER=US$−1607 (US$−1609 to US$−1604) per DALY averted) compared with slow roll-out at the same coverage level, but 50% and 70% coverage scenarios were not cost-effective.InterpretationWith prior exposure partially protecting much of the Kenyan population, vaccination of young adults may no longer be cost-effective.