The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation of malaria prior to treatment. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) represent one diagnostic method that is used in a variety of contexts to overcome limitations of other diagnostic techniques. Malaria RDTs increase the availability and feasibility of accurate diagnosis and may result in improved quality of care. Though RDTs are used in a variety of contexts, no studies have compared how well or effectively RDTs are used across these contexts. This review assesses the diagnostic use of RDTs in four different contexts: health facilities, the community, drug shops and schools. A comprehensive search of the Pubmed database was conducted to evaluate RDT execution, test accuracy, or adherence to test results in sub-Saharan Africa. Original RDT and Plasmodium falciparum focused studies conducted in formal health care facilities, drug shops, schools, or by CHWs between the year 2000 and December 2016 were included. Studies were excluded if they were conducted exclusively in a research laboratory setting, where staff from the study team conducted RDTs, or in settings outside of sub-Saharan Africa. The literature search identified 757 reports. A total of 52 studies were included in the analysis. Overall, RDTs were performed safely and effectively by community health workers provided they receive proper training. Analogous information was largely absent for formal health care workers. Tests were generally accurate across contexts, except for in drug shops where lower specificities were observed. Adherence to RDT results was higher among drug shop vendors and community health workers, while adherence was more variable among formal health care workers, most notably with negative test results. Malaria RDTs are generally used well, though compliance with test results is variable – especially in the formal health care sector. If low adherence rates are extrapolated, thousands of patients may be incorrectly diagnosed and receive inappropriate treatment resulting in a low quality of care and unnecessary drug use. Multidisciplinary research should continue to explore determinants of good RDT use, and seek to better understand how to support and sustain the correct use of this diagnostic tool.

Despite the importance of community health workers (CHWs) to health systems in resource-constrained environments, relatively little has been written about their contributions to pandemic preparedness. In this perspective piece, we draw from the response to the 2014 Ebola and 2015 Zika epidemics to review examples whereby CHWs contributed to health security and pandemic preparedness. CHWs promoted pandemic preparedness prior to the epidemics by increasing the access to health services and products within communities, communicating health concepts in a culturally appropriate fashion, and reducing the burdens felt by formal healthcare systems. During the epidemics, CHWs promoted pandemic preparedness by acting as community-level educators and mobilizers, contributing to surveillance systems, and filling health service gaps. Acknowledging the success CHWs have had in these roles and in previous interventions, we propose that the cadre may be better engaged in pandemic preparedness in the future. Some practical strategies for achieving this include training and using CHWs to communicate One Health information to at-risk communities prior to outbreaks, pooling them into a reserve health corps to be used during public health emergencies, and formalizing agreements and strategies to promote the early engagement of CHWs in response actions. Recognizing that CHWs already play a role in pandemic preparedness, we feel that expanding the roles and responsibilities of CHWs represents a practical means of improving pandemic and community-level resilience.

Our world is rapidly urbanizing. According to the United Nations, between 1990 and 2015, the percent of the world’s population living in urban areas grew from 43% to 54%. Estimates suggest that this trend will continue and that over 68% of the world’s population will call cities home by 2050, with the majority of urbanization occurring in African countries. This urbanization is already having a profound effect on global health and could significantly impact the epidemiology of infectious diseases. A better understanding of infectious disease risk factors specific to urban settings is needed to plan for and mitigate against future urban outbreaks. We conducted a systematic literature review of the Web of Science and PubMed databases to assess the risk factors for infectious diseases in the urban environments of sub-Saharan Africa. A search combining keywords associated with cities, migration, African countries, infectious disease, and risk were used to identify relevant studies. Original research and meta-analyses published between 2004 and 2019 investigating geographical and behavioral risk factors, changing disease distributions, or control programs were included in the study. The search yielded 3610 papers, and 106 met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Papers were categorized according to risk factors, geographic area, and study type. The papers covered 31 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with East Africa being the most represented sub-region. Malaria and HIV were the most frequent disease focuses of the studies. The results of this work can inform public health policy as it relates to capacity building and health systems strengthening in rapidly urbanizing areas, as well as highlight knowledge gaps that warrant additional research.

The World Health Organization (WHO) notifies the global community about disease outbreaks through the Disease Outbreak News (DON). These online reports tell important stories about both outbreaks themselves and the high-level decision making that governs information sharing during public health emergencies. However, they have been used only minimally in global health scholarship to date. Here, we collate all 2,789 of these reports from their first use through the start of the Covid-19 pandemic (January 1996 to December 2019), and develop an annotated database of the subjective and often inconsistent information they contain. We find that these reports are dominated by a mix of persistent worldwide threats (particularly influenza and cholera) and persistent epidemics (like Ebola virus disease in Africa or MERS-CoV in the Middle East), but also document important periods in history like the anthrax bioterrorist attacks at the turn of the century, the spread of chikungunya and Zika virus to the Americas, or even recent lapses in progress towards polio elimination. We present three simple vignettes that show how researchers can use these data to answer both qualitative and quantitative questions about global outbreak dynamics and public health response. However, we also find that the retrospective value of these reports is visibly limited by inconsistent reporting (e.g., of disease names, case totals, mortality, and actions taken to curtail spread). We conclude that sharing a transparent rubric for which outbreaks are considered reportable, and adopting more standardized formats for sharing epidemiological metadata, might help make the DON more useful to researchers and policymakers.

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are a simple, point-of-care technology that can improve the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of malaria. They are an increasingly common diagnostic tool, but concerns remain about their use by community health workers (CHWs). These concerns regard the long-term trends relating to infection prevention measures, the interpretation of test results and adherence to treatment protocols. This study assessed whether CHWs maintained their competency at conducting RDTs over a 12-month timeframe, and if this competency varied with specific CHW characteristics. From June to September, 2015, CHWs (n = 271) were trained to conduct RDTs using a 3-day validated curriculum and a baseline assessment was completed. Between June and August, 2016, CHWs (n = 105) were randomly selected and recruited for follow-up assessments using a 20-step checklist that classified steps as relating to safety, accuracy, and treatment; 103 CHWs participated in follow-up assessments. Poisson regressions were used to test for associations between error count data at follow-up and Poisson regression models fit using generalized estimating equations were used to compare data across time-points. At both baseline and follow-up observations, at least 80% of CHWs correctly completed 17 of the 20 steps. CHWs being 50 years of age or older was associated with increased total errors and safety errors at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, prior experience conducting RDTs was associated with fewer errors. Performance, as it related to the correct completion of all checklist steps and safety steps, did not decline over the 12 months and performance of accuracy steps improved (mean error ratio: 0.51; 95% CI 0.40–0.63). Visual interpretation of RDT results yielded a CHW sensitivity of 92.0% and a specificity of 97.3% when compared to interpretation by the research team. None of the characteristics investigated was found to be significantly associated with RDT interpretation. With training, most CHWs performing RDTs maintain diagnostic testing competency over at least 12 months. CHWs generally perform RDTs safely and accurately interpret results. Younger age and prior experiences with RDTs were associated with better testing performance. Future research should investigate the mode by which CHW characteristics impact RDT procedures.

In response to shortcomings in epidemic preparedness and response that were revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous proposals for ways to improve preparedness and response financing. Included among these is the World Bank’s Pandemic Fund, formerly known as the Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response, which was launched in September 2022. This analysis piece examines the Pandemic Fund, where it fits into ongoing discussions surrounding financing for preparedness and response efforts and discusses emerging apprehensions about the new financing mechanism. Briefly, the Pandemic Fund is not the first time that the World Bank has hosted a financing mechanism to provide support for pandemic response. Notably the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)—which was launched in 2017 and closed in 2021—was criticised for generally failing to realise its potential. However, the Pandemic Fund seems to be addressing several of these critiques by placing a greater emphasis on prevention and preparedness financing, as opposed to response financing. Still, there is an important need for response funding mechanisms, and concerningly, the Pandemic Fund seems to support response efforts in name only. While it is clearly desirable to prepare for and prevent outbreaks for a multitude of reasons, it is also naive to assume that strengthening preparedness capacities will eliminate outbreaks and the need for response financing altogether. Accordingly, there is a need to complement this new financing mechanism with dedicated funding for responding to infectious disease outbreaks and to closely link this response financing with health security frameworks and instruments.