Dataset Information

Geospatial clustering and correlates of deaths during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia: a Bayesian geoadditive semiparametric analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional survey data.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the extent of geospatial clustering of reported deaths during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia and the covariates associated with the observed clustering.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Male and female respondents from the 2019-2020 Liberia Demographic and Health Survey. The analysis covered 11 928 (women=7854 and men=4074) respondents for whom complete data were available.

Outcome measures

The outcome variable was the death of a household member or relative during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, coded 1 if the respondent reported death and 0 otherwise.

Methods

We applied the Bayesian geoadditive semiparametric regression to examine the extent of geospatial clustering of deaths at the district-level and community-level development and socioeconomic factors associated with the observed clustering.

Results

Almost a quarter (24.8%) of all respondents reported the death of a household member or relative during the Ebola outbreak. The results show that deaths were clustered within districts in six (Grand Cape Mount, Bomi, Monsterrado, Margibi, Gbarpolu and Lofa) of the 15 counties in Liberia. Districts with high death clustering were all near or shared borders with Sierra Leone and Guinea. The community-level development indicators (global human footprint, gross cell production and population density) had a non-linear associative effect with the observed spatial clustering. Also, respondents' characteristics (respondent's age (non-linear effect), educational attainment and urban-rural place of residence) were associated with the observed clustering. The results show that death clustering during outbreaks was constrained to poor settings and impacts areas of moderate and high socioeconomic development.

Conclusion

Reported deaths during the Ebola outbreak in Liberia were not randomly distributed at the district level but clustered. The findings highlight the need to identify at-risk populations during epidemics and respond with the needed interventions to save lives.

SUBMITTER: Amoako Johnson F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9237885 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLinking facility and household surveys through geographic methods is a popular technique to draw conclusions about the relationship between health services and population health outcomes at local levels. These methods are useful tools for measuring effective coverage and tracking progress towards Universal Health Coverage, but are understudied. This paper compares the appropriateness of several geospatial methods used for linking individuals (within displaced survey cluster locations) to their source of family planning (at undisplaced health facilities) at a national level.MethodsIn Malawi, geographic methods linked a population health survey, rural clusters from the Woman's Questionnaire of the 2015 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS 2015), to Malawi's national health facility census to understand the service environment where women receive family planning services. Individuals from MDHS 2015 clusters were linked to health facilities through four geographic methods: (i) closest facility, (ii) buffer (5 km), (iii) administrative boundary, and (iv) a newly described theoretical catchment area method. Results were compared across metrics to assess the number of unlinked clusters (data lost), the number of linkages per cluster (precision of linkage), and the number of women linked to their last source of modern contraceptive (appropriateness of linkage).ResultsThe closest facility and administrative boundary methods linked every cluster to at least one facility, while the 5-km buffer method left 288 clusters (35.3%) unlinked. The theoretical catchment area method linked all but one cluster to at least one facility (99.9% linked). Closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods linked clusters to 1.0, 1.4, 21.1, and 3.3 facilities on average, respectively. Overall, the closest facility, 5-km buffer, administrative boundary, and catchment methods appropriately linked 64.8%, 51.9%, 97.5%, and 88.9% of women to their last source of modern contraceptive, respectively.ConclusionsOf the methods studied, the theoretical catchment area linking method loses a marginal amount of population data, links clusters to a relatively low number of facilities, and maintains a high level of appropriate linkages. This linking method is demonstrated at scale and can be used to link individuals to qualities of their service environments and better understand the pathways through which interventions impact health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hygiene promotion is a cornerstone of humanitarian response during infectious disease outbreaks. Despite this, we know little about how humanitarian organisations design, deliver or monitor hygiene programmes, or about what works to change hygiene behaviours in outbreak settings. This study describes humanitarian perspectives on changing behaviours in crises, through a case study of hygiene promotion during the 2014-2016 Liberian Ebola outbreak. Our aim was to aid better understanding of decision making in high-stress situations where there is little precedent or evidence, and to prompt reflection within the sector around how to improve and support this. METHODS:We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with fourteen purposively-sampled individuals (key informants) from international organisations involved in hygiene behaviour change during the outbreak. Through thematic analysis we identified the decisions that were made and processes that were followed to design, deliver and monitor interventions. We compared our findings with theory-driven processes used to design behaviour change interventions in non-outbreak situations. RESULTS:Humanitarians predominantly focussed on providing hygiene products (e.g. buckets, soap, gloves) and delivering messages through posters, radio and community meetings. They faced challenges in defining which hygiene behaviours to promote. Assessments focused on understanding infrastructural needs, but omitted systematic assessments of hygiene behaviours or their determinants. Humanitarians assumed that fear and disease awareness would be the most powerful motivators for behaviour change. They thought that behaviour change techniques used in non-emergency settings were too 'experimental', and were beyond the skillset of most humanitarian actors. Monitoring focussed on inputs and outputs rather than behavioural impact. CONCLUSIONS:The experiences of humanitarians allowed us to identify areas that could be strengthened when designing hygiene programmes in future outbreaks. Specifically, we identified a need for rapid research methods to explore behavioural determinants; increased skills training for frontline staff, and increased operational research to explore behaviour change strategies that are suited to outbreak situations.