Suchergebnisse

Following the 2013–2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, governments across the region imposed a ban on the hunting and consumption of meat from wild animals. This injunction was accompanied by public health messages emphasising the infectious potential of wild meat, or 'bushmeat.' Using qualitative methods, we examine the local reception and impact of these interventions. Fieldwork was focused in 9 villages in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Sierra Leone between August and December 2015. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews, coordinated 12 informal group discussions, and conducted direct observations throughout. We also draw from research undertaken in Sierra Leone immediately before the outbreak, and from our participation in the EVD response in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Our findings underscore the social and political reverberations of hunting proscriptions. Messaging that unilaterally stressed the health risk posed by wild meat contradicted the experiences of target publics, who consume wild meat without incident. This epistemic dissonance radically undercut the effectiveness of the ban, which merely served to proliferate informal networks of wild animal trade and sale—rendering the development of acceptable, evidence-based surveillance and mitigation strategies for zoonotic spillovers almost impossible. Further, the criminalisation of wild meat consumption fuelled fears and rumours within communities under considerable strain from the health, social, and economic effects of the epidemic, entrenching distrust towards outbreak responders and exacerbating pre-existing tensions within villages. These unintended consequences are instructive for public health emergency response and preparedness. While wild meat is a risk for zoonotic infection, mitigating those risks entails interventions that fully take into account the local significances of hunting—including a communicative engagement that is designed, validated, and continually refined before emergency situations. Ultimately, our research questions the value of legal sanctions as a means of behavioural change in an emergency context.

Following the 2013–2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, governments across the region imposed a ban on the hunting and consumption of meat from wild animals. This injunction was accompanied by public health messages emphasising the infectious potential of wild meat, or 'bushmeat.' Using a qualitative methodology, we examine the local reception and impact of these interventions. Fieldwork was focused in 9 villages in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Sierra Leone between August and December 2015. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews, coordinated 12 informal group discussions, and conducted direct observations throughout. We also draw from research undertaken in Sierra Leone immediately before the outbreak, and from our participation in the EVD response in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Our findings underscore the social and political reverberations of hunting proscriptions. Messaging that unilaterally stressed the health risk posed by wild meat contradicted the experiences of target publics, who consume wild meat without incident. This epistemic dissonance radically undercut the effectiveness of the ban, which merely served to proliferate informal networks of wild animal trade and sale—rendering the development of acceptable, evidence-based surveillance and mitigation strategies for zoonotic spillovers almost impossible. Further, the criminalisation of wild meat consumption fuelled fears and rumours within communities under considerable strain from the health, social, and economic effects of the epidemic, entrenching distrust towards outbreak responders and exacerbating pre-existing tensions within villages. These unintended consequences are instructive for public health emergency response and preparedness. While wild meat is a risk for zoonotic infection, mitigating those risks entails interventions that fully take into account the local significances of hunting—including a communicative engagement that is designed, validated, and continually refined before emergency situations. Ultimately, our research questions the value of legal sanctions as a means of behavioural change in an emergency context.

Following the 2013–2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, governments across the region imposed a ban on the hunting and consumption of meat from wild animals. This injunction was accompanied by public health messages emphasising the infectious potential of wild meat, or 'bushmeat.' Using qualitative methods, we examine the local reception and impact of these interventions. Fieldwork was focused in 9 villages in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Sierra Leone between August and December 2015. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews, coordinated 12 informal group discussions, and conducted direct observations throughout. We also draw from research undertaken in Sierra Leone immediately before the outbreak, and from our participation in the EVD response in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Our findings underscore the social and political reverberations of hunting proscriptions. Messaging that unilaterally stressed the health risk posed by wild meat contradicted the experiences of target publics, who consume wild meat without incident. This epistemic dissonance radically undercut the effectiveness of the ban, which merely served to proliferate informal networks of wild animal trade and sale—rendering the development of acceptable, evidence-based surveillance and mitigation strategies for zoonotic spillovers almost impossible. Further, the criminalisation of wild meat consumption fuelled fears and rumours within communities under considerable strain from the health, social, and economic effects of the epidemic, entrenching distrust towards outbreak responders and exacerbating pre-existing tensions within villages. These unintended consequences are instructive for public health emergency response and preparedness. While wild meat is a risk for zoonotic infection, mitigating those risks entails interventions that fully take into account the local significances of hunting—including a communicative engagement that is designed, validated, and continually refined before emergency situations. Ultimately, our research questions the value of legal sanctions as a means of behavioural change in an emergency context

Introduction: bypassing refers to a person's decision to seek care at a healthcare facility that is not the nearest one of its type to the person's home. Methods: this study examined inpatient care facility bypassing in urban Bo, Sierra Leone using data from 1,980 women with children 15 years of age and younger who were interviewed in 2010-2011. The locations of residential structures and hospitals were identified using a geographic information system (GIS), and the road distances from participating households to the nearest and preferred inpatient care facilities were measured. Results: nine inpatient care facilities serve Bo residents, but more than 70% of the participating women reported that the city's main public hospital (Bo Government Hospital), located in the city center, was their preferred inpatient care provider. Participants resided within a median distance of 0.9 km (Interquartile range (IQR): 0.6, 1.8) from their closest inpatient facility, but they would travel a median distance of 2.4 km (IQR: 1.0, 3.3) to reach their preferred providers. About 87% of the women would bypass their nearest inpatient care facility to access care at a preferred provider. Bypassing rates were similar for various demographic and socioeconomic groups, but higher for women living farther from the city center. Conclusion: although Bo has a diverse healthcare marketplace, access to affordable advanced care options is limited. Most women in Bo would choose to bypass facilities nearer to their homes to seek the low-cost and comprehensive care offered by Bo Government Hospital.

As of April 2010, all maternity care at government healthcare facilities in Sierra Leone is provided at no cost to patients. In late 2010, we conducted a community health census of 18 sections of the city of Bo (selected via randomized cluster sampling from 68 total sections). Among the 3421 women with a history of pregnancy who participated in the study, older women most often reported having a history of both home and hospital deliveries, while younger women showed a preference for hospital births. The proportion of lastborn children delivered at a healthcare facility increased from 71.8% of offspring 10–14 years old to 81.1% of those one to nine years old and 87.3% of infants born after April 2010. These findings suggest that the new maternal healthcare initiative has accelerated an existing trend toward a preference for healthcare facility births, at least in some urban parts of Sierra Leone.

Public health data collection methods in Sierra Leone were compared. First, a household health census was conducted with some interviewers using paper-based forms requiring later data entry and others using tablet computers for immediate electronic data inputting. Electronic data-entry surveys were more time-efficient and accurate than paper-based surveys. In a second evaluation, military Medical Inspection rooms (MIRs) sent syndromic surveillance reports to a central communications hub via cell phone or paper-based forms. The report compliance rate was 89% for daily SMS and 100% for weekly SMS versus 76% for weekly paper reports. Electronic data collection and reporting is feasible and cost-efficient in low-resource settings.