The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has had unprecedented impacts on health systems, public health, societies and individuals globally ( The Lancet Public Health, 2020). In response to outbreaks, physical distancing measures, national lockdowns and travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19 have been implemented in many countries ( Chu et al., 2020). In response to these measures, many public health researchers are choosing to switch from standard face-to-face data collection methods to remote data collection in support of continued research. Remote data collection is defined here as the collection of data via the phone, online or other virtual platforms, with study participants and researchers physically distanced.

Somalia is one of 20 countries in the world with the highest numbers of zero-dose children. This study aims to identify who and where zero-dose and under-vaccinated children are and what the existing vaccine delivery strategies to reach zero-dose children in Somalia are. This qualitative study was conducted in three geographically diverse regions of Somalia (rural/remote, nomadic/pastoralists, IDPs, and urban poor population), with government officials and NGO staff (n = 17), and with vaccinators and community members (n = 52). The data were analyzed using the GAVI Vaccine Alliance IRMMA framework. Nomadic populations, internally displaced persons, and populations living in remote and Al-shabaab-controlled areas are three vulnerable and neglected populations with a high proportion of zero-dose children. Despite the contextual heterogeneity of these population groups, the lack of targeted, population-specific strategies and meaningful engagement of local communities in the planning and implementation of immunization services is problematic in effectively reaching zero-dose children. This is, to our knowledge, the first study that examines vaccination strategies for zero-dose and under-vaccinated populations in the fragile context of Somalia. Evidence on populations at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases and barriers to vital vaccination services remain critical and urgent, especially in a country like Somalia with complex health system challenges.

Background: Shielding of high-risk groups from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been suggested as a realistic alternative to severe movement restrictions during the COVID-19 epidemic in low-income countries. The intervention entails the establishment of ‘green zones’ for high-risk persons to live in, either within their homes or in communal structures, in a safe and dignified manner, for extended periods of time during the epidemic. To our knowledge, this concept has not been tested or evaluated in resource-poor settings. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield persons at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, during the COVID-19 epidemic in six communities in Sudan. Methods: We purposively sampled participants from six communities, illustrative of urban, rural and forcibly-displaced settings. In-depth telephone interviews were held with 59 members of households with one or more members at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Follow-up interviews were held with 30 community members after movement restrictions were eased across the country. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a two-stage deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Most participants were aware that some people are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes but were unaware of the concept of shielding. Most participants found shielding acceptable and consistent with cultural inclinations to respect elders and protect the vulnerable. However, extra-household shielding arrangements were mostly seen as socially unacceptable. Participants reported feasibility concerns related to the reduced socialisation of shielded persons and loss of income for shielding families. The acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies were reduced after movement restrictions were eased, as participants reported lower perception of risk in their communities and increased pressure to comply with social commitments outside the house. Conclusion: Shielding is generally acceptable in the study communities. Acceptability is influenced by feasibility, and by contextual changes in the epidemic and associated policy response. The promotion of shielding should capitalise on the cultural and moral sense of duty towards elders and vulnerable groups. Communities and households should be provided with practical guidance to implement feasible shielding options. Households must be socially, psychologically and financially supported to adopt and sustain shielding effectively.

Background: Risk communication interventions during epidemics aim to modify risk perceptions to achieve rapid shifts in population health behaviours. Exposure to frequent and often concurrent epidemics may influence how the public and health professionals perceive and respond to epidemic risks. This review aimed to systematically examine the evidence on risk perceptions of epidemic-prone diseases in countries highly vulnerable to epidemics. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA standards. We included peer-reviewed studies describing or measuring risk perceptions of epidemic-prone diseases among the general adult population or health professionals in 62 countries considered highly vulnerable to epidemics. We searched seven bibliographic databases and applied a four-stage screening and selection process, followed by quality appraisal. We conducted a narrative meta-synthesis and descriptive summary of the evidence, guided by the Social Amplification of Risk Framework. Results: Fifty-six studies were eligible for the final review. They were conducted in eighteen countries and addressed thirteen epidemic-prone diseases. Forty-five studies were quantitative, six qualitative and five used mixed methods. Forty-one studies described epidemic risk perceptions in the general public and nineteen among health professionals. Perceived severity of epidemic-prone diseases appeared high across public and health professional populations. However, perceived likelihood of acquiring disease varied from low to moderate to high among the general public, and appeared consistently high amongst health professionals. Other occupational groups with high exposure to specific diseases, such as bushmeat handlers, reported even lower perceived likelihood than the general population. Among health professionals, the safety and effectiveness of the work environment and of the broader health system response influenced perceptions. Among the general population, disease severity, familiarity and controllability of diseases were influential factors. However, the evidence on how epidemic risk perceptions are formed or modified in these populations is limited. Conclusions: The evidence affords some insights into patterns of epidemic risk perception and influencing factors, but inadequately explores what underlies perceptions and their variability, particularly among diseases, populations and over time. Approaches to defining and measuring epidemic risk perceptions are relatively underdeveloped. Graphical

This paper presents findings from a literature review of methods that explicitly assess the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. We set out to highlight the key features and limitations of each method and introduce a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian responses. This review is part of a broader project to enhance the accountability of humanitarian responses through developing auditing approaches for real-time monitoring. We identified eight methods that explicitly analyse the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. The review revealed that existing methods vary considerably in their definitions of ‘appropriateness’, provide insufficient guidance on measurement, are vulnerable to interpretive bias and frequently report findings on ‘appropriateness’ in an ambiguous manner. These findings suggest that, as a matter of accountability, more structured and systematic approaches to measuring the appropriateness of humanitarian response are needed. We propose a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian response that seeks to address the limitations identified in the review. We provide a brief overview of the main components and features of a systematic approach and audit tool for assessing the ‘appropriateness’ of a humanitarian response. The use of this and other systematic approaches is essential for enhancing governance and accountability in humanitarian responses.

Delivering vaccines in humanitarian response requires rigourous and continuous analysis of evidence. This systematic review mapped the normative landscape of vaccination guidance on vaccine-preventable diseases in crisis-affected settings. Guidance published between 2000 and 2022 was searched for, in English and French, on websites of humanitarian actors, Google, and Bing. Peer-reviewed database searches were performed in Global Health and Embase. Reference lists of all included documents were screened. We disseminated an online survey to professionals working in vaccination delivery in humanitarian contexts. There was a total of 48 eligible guidance documents, including technical guidance (n = 17), descriptive guidance (n = 16), operational guidance (n = 11), evidence reviews (n = 3), and ethical guidance (n = 1). Most were World Health Organization documents (n = 21) targeting children under 5 years of age. Critical appraisal revealed insufficient inclusion of affected populations and limited rigour in guideline development. We found limited information on vaccines including, yellow fever, cholera, meningococcal, hepatitis A, and varicella, as well as human papilloma virus (HPV). There is a plethora of vaccination guidance for vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian contexts. However, gaps remain in the critical and systematic inclusion of evidence, inclusion of the concept of “zero-dose” children and affected populations, ethical guidance, and specific recommendations for HPV and non-universally recommended vaccines, which must be addressed.