Dataset Information

The impact of the COVID-19 response on the provision of other public health services in the U.S.: A cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Funding and staff formerly dedicated to routine public health tasks (e.g., responding to communicable and non-communicable diseases, investigating foodborne outbreaks, conducting routine surveillance) and services (e.g., environmental health, substance abuse, maternal-child health) may no longer be available in many public health departments due to the COVID-19 response. The objective of this study was to assess the extent to which staffing for essential public health services has been redirected to the COVID-19 response.

Materials and methods

This is a cross-sectional study using a survey distributed through the Qualtrics platform. Individuals (N = 298) working in public health across governmental and academic public health departments in the U.S. during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response were surveyed. Survey items measured multiple domains including professional experience (i.e., training, years of experience, content expertise, job functions, hours worked), mental and physical health status (i.e., generalized anxiety, depression, burnout), and career plans (i.e., pre-pandemic vs. current career plans).

Results

The total number of content expertise areas and programmatic functions covered by individual public health workers increased between January and September of 2020, with 26% (73 of 282) of respondents reporting an increase in both. The total number of respondents working in infectious disease and preparedness remained constant, while declines were reported in program evaluation (-36%) and health education (-27%) and increases were reported in disease investigation (+35%).

Conclusions

The provision of many essential public health functions and tasks have been limited or eliminated while the U.S. public health workforce responds to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight opportunities for funding and professional development of public health systems, both during and after the COVID-19 response, to help ensure the continuity of essential public health services, staffing sustainability, and preparedness for future public health emergencies in the U.S.

SUBMITTER: Kintziger KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8516286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNigeria, like many other countries, has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. While efforts have been devoted to curtailing the disease, a major concern has been its potential effects on the delivery and utilization of reproductive health care services in the country. The objective of the study was to investigate the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns had affected the provision of essential reproductive, maternal, child, and adolescent health (RMCAH) services in primary health care facilities across the Nigerian States.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of 307 primary health centres (PHCs) in 30 Local Government Areas in 10 States, representing the six geopolitical regions of the country. A semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to obtain data on issues relating to access and provision of RMCAH services before, during and after COVID-19 lockdowns from the head nurses/midwives in the facilities. The questionnaire was entered into Open Data Kit mounted on smartphones. Data were analysed using frequency and percentage, summary statistics, and Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultsBetween 76 and 97% of the PHCS offered RMCAH services before the lockdown. Except in antenatal, delivery and adolescent care, there was a decline of between 2 and 6% in all the services during the lockdown and up to 10% decline after the lockdown with variation across and within States. During the lockdown. Full-service delivery was reported by 75.2% whereas 24.8% delivered partial services. There was a significant reduction in clients' utilization of the services during the lockdown, and the difference between States before the pandemic, during, and after the lockdown. Reported difficulties during the lockdown included stock-out of drugs (25.7%), stock-out of contraceptives (25.1%), harassment by the law enforcement agents (76.9%), and transportation difficulties (55.8%). Only 2% of the PHCs reported the availability of gowns, 18% had gloves, 90.1% had hand sanitizers, and a temperature checker was available in 94.1%. Slightly above 10% identified clients with symptoms of COVID-19.ConclusionsThe large proportion of PHCs who provided RMCAH services despite the lockdown demonstrates resilience. Considering the several difficulties reported, and the limited provision of primary protective equipment more effort by the government and non-governmental agencies is recommended to strengthen delivery of sexual and reproductive health in primary health centres in Nigeria during the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundRight from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data.ResultsSix hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%).ConclusionsThere are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

Project description:This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission-to-acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher-responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance-to-publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety-eight of 2,835 COVID-19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID-19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission-to-acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3-11) versus 71.5 days (38-106); P < .001] and acceptance-to-publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2-8) versus 22.5 days (4-48·5-; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID-19. Almost all COVID-19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open-access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID-19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one-in-four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.Key pointsCOVID-19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID-19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision-making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID-19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.The majority of both COVID-19 and MERS articles are available open-access.