Dataset Information

The first 100 days: how has COVID-19 affected poor and vulnerable groups in India?

ABSTRACT: In India, strict public health measures to suppress COVID-19 transmission and reduce burden have been rapidly adopted. Pandemic containment and confinement measures impact societies and economies; their costs and benefits must be assessed holistically. This study provides an evolving portrait of the health, economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable populations in India. Our analysis focuses on 100 days early in the pandemic from 13 March to 20 June 2020. We developed a conceptual framework based on the human right to health and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We analysed people's experiences recorded and shared via mobile phone on the voice platforms operated by the Gram Vaani COVID-19 response network, a service for rural and low-income populations now being deployed to support India's COVID-19 response. Quantitative and visual methods were used to summarize key features of the data and explore relationships between factors. In its first 100 days, the platform logged over 1.15 million phone calls, of which 793 350 (69%) were outbound calls related largely to health promotion in the context of COVID-19. Analysis of 6636 audio recordings by network users revealed struggles to secure the basic necessities of survival, including food (48%), cash (17%), transportation (10%) and employment or livelihoods (8%). Themes were mapped to shortfalls in 10 SDGs and their associated targets. Pre-existing development deficits and weak social safety nets are driving vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis. For an effective pandemic response and recovery, these must be addressed through inclusive policy design and institutional reforms.

SUBMITTER: Johri M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8194803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.

Project description:Vaccine hesitancy is a global health challenge in controlling the virulence of pandemics. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy will put highly vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or groups with pre-existing health conditions, at a higher risk, as seen with the outbreak of the pandemic Covid-19. Based on the trends of vaccine hesitancy in the state of Sabah, located in East Malaysia, this study seeks to identify several variables that contribute to vaccine hesitancy. In addition to this, this study also determines which groups are affected by vaccine hesitancy based on their demographics. This study is based on a sampling of 1,024 Sabahan population aged 18 and above through an online and face-to-face questionnaire. The raw data was analysed using the K-Means Clustering Analysis, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Mann-Whitney U Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, and frequency. The K-Means Clustering found that more than half of the total number of respondents (Cluster 2 = 51.9%) tend to demonstrate vaccine hesitancy. Based on the PCA analysis, six main factors were found to cause vaccine hesitancy in Sabah: confidence (var(X) = 21.6%), the influence of local authority (var(X) = 12.1%), ineffectiveness of mainstream media (var(X) = 8.4%), complacency (var(X) = 7.4%), social media (var(X) = 6.4%), and convenience issues (var(X) = 5.8%). Findings from both Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests demonstrate that several factors of group demographics, such as employment status, level of education, religion, gender, and marital status, may explain the indicator of vaccine hesitancy. In particular, specific groups tend to become vaccine hesitancy such as, unemployed, self-employed, students, male, single, level of education, and Muslim. Findings from this empirical study are crucial to inform the relevant local authorities on the level of vulnerability among certain groups in facing the hazards of COVID-19. The main contribution of this study is that it seeks to analyse the factors behind vaccine hesitancy and identifies which groups more likely hesitant toward vaccines based on their demographics.

Dataset Information

The first 100 days: how has COVID-19 affected poor and vulnerable groups in India?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets