ABSTRACT
Introduction In mid-2020, due to the health system challenges from increased COVID-19 cases, the Ministry of Health and Social Action in Senegal opted for contact management and care of simple cases at home. The study’s objective was to determine the acceptability of contact management, home care of simple cases of COVID-19, and its associated factors.
Method This was a sequential mixed-method study. We collected data from June 11, 2020, to July 10, 2020, for the quantitative survey (N=813) and from August 24 to September 16, 2020, for the qualitative survey (N=30). We carried out a sampling strategy using marginal quotas at the national level. We collected data using a structured questionnaire in a telephone interview for the quantitative survey and using an interview guide formulated from the quantitative survey’s initial results for the qualitative data. We assessed acceptability using binomial logistic regression combined with content analysis.
Results The care of simple cases of COVID-19 at home was well accepted (78.5%). This result was justified for some (saturation of the health system) but not for others (risk of contamination). The use of home contact management was less accepted (51.4%), with risk limitation as the main reason given. The acceptability of home-based care for simple cases was positively associated with knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus (ORaj: 1.55 [95%CI: 1.04,2.28]), regular research into COVID-19 (ORaj: 2.12 [95%CI: 1.45,3.12]), belief in the existence of treatment (ORaj: 1.82 [95%CI: 1.19,2.83]), and confidence in institutional information (ORaj: 2.10 [95%CI: 1.43,3.10]). The acceptability of home-based contact management was positively associated with knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus (ORaj: 1.77 [95%CI: 1.27,2.48]), regular research for information on COVID-19 (ORaj: 2.39 [95%CI: 1.76,3.26]), and confidence in the government in the fight against the epidemic (ORaj: 1.51 [95%CI: 1.10,2.08]).
Conclusion Regular information on the disease, knowledge of its mode of transmission and trust in institutions are factors in accepting COVID-19 management at the community level. Authorities should take these factors into account for better communication to improve the acceptability of home-based care.
INTRODUCTION
To break the chains of transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, case detection, case management in dedicated centres [1], and screening and quarantine of contacts have been proposed as non-pharmaceutical interventions [2]. These measures aim to prevent the further transmission of secondary infections. They have been used successfully to prevent further outbreaks in South Korea [2].
In Senegal, as soon as the first case of COVID-19 appeared on March 2, 2020, the authorities put a national multi-sectoral action plan in place for monitoring and response [3]. The government accompanied this plan with measures such as border closures, curfews, bans on movement between regions, closure of places of worship, and closure of markets [45]. They established epidemiological treatment centres (ETCs) in all regions to manage COVID cases [19]. On March 22, 2020, they began to isolate contacts in hotel facilities [4].
Despite the unprecedented national measures taken, COVID-19 cases continued to increase (Figure 1) [6,7] leading to an increase in the number of contacts requiring follow-up.
Faced with this increase in the number numbers and the over-saturation of the health and hotel systems, on May 15, 2020, the authorities decided to stop monitoring contacts in hotels and care of simple cases in the ETCs. For the care of simple cases of COVID-19, they first adopted an extra-hospital care (dedicated sites outside the ETCs) at the end of April 2020 [8] then a home care in July 2020 with protocol to be respected [9]. A simple case is defined as a patient confirmed at COVID-19 who presents signs of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection such as fatigue, cough (with or without phlegm), nausea or vomiting, muscle pain, sore throat, nasal congestion, headache, ageusia (loss of taste) and anosmia (loss of smell) [9]. A contact is defined as a person (including caregivers and health workers) who has been exposed to individuals with suspected COVID-19 disease; they are advised to monitor their health for 14 days from the last day of contact [10].
The recent SARS and Ebola epidemics used home-based management approaches [11]. However, there are some risks associated with this strategy, including the spread of the virus within households and in the community [1] and social stigma [12], which undermines these measures’ potential effectiveness. Several countries and the World Health Organization (WHO) have developed guidelines for the home management of COVID cases [10,13-15]. Indeed, the vast majority of patients infected with COVID-19 develop a benign disease [16]. A few studies have shown that the ideal way to control the COVID-19 pandemic is to isolate patients in health facilities with appropriate respiratory precautions, contact tracing, and barrier measures [17-19]. However, isolation in health facilities would result in a shortage of beds for other patients [15]. In this context, home-based management (a familiar environment with family support) is necessary and could help to overcome psychological problems [20]. However, to our knowledge, these guidelines and studies on the subject have not addressed the social acceptability of these measures. Thus, our objective was to determine the acceptability of contact and simple case management of COVID-19 at home and its associated factors in Senegal.
METHOD
Study framework
The study took place in the 14 regions of Senegal. The average age in Senegal is 19 years, and males make up 49.7% of the population [21]. The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases on the day the survey started (June 11, 2020) was 4759 [7] with 76.5% of cases in the Dakar region. The organisation of the socio-sanitary sector is pyramidal (central, intermediate and peripheral levels), based on administrative divisions [22]. There are twenty ETCs in all regions of Senegal [23]. They have a capacity of 800 inpatient beds [24] and 80 beds for resuscitation and respirators were available in May throughout the country [25].
Research estimates, period and study population
It was a mixed-method specification with a sequential explanatory design with a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase [26].
We collected quantitative data from June 11 to July 10, 2020, and qualitative data from August 24 to September 16, 2020. The study population consisted of people aged 18 and over in the general population with a mobile phone number.
Sampling
The quantitative study used a marginal quota sampling strategy [27]. To have a representative sample of the population, we carried out stratification by population weight by region, gender and age group. We randomly generated a nine-digit telephone number list from mobile telephone numbers attributable to Senegal using the Random Digit Dialing (RDD) method. Each number had the same probability of being drawn at random. We integrated this list into a Reactive Auto Dialer (RAD) to trigger calls automatically and optimally. The respondents from the qualitative study were nested in the quantitative study. Their selection followed the same stratification as that of the quantitative sample in order to have a diversity of points of view. A total of 813 individuals took part in the quantitative survey, 30 of whom were in the qualitative survey.
Data collection
Five interviewers speaking six languages (French, Diola, Wolof, Sérére, Pulaar, Soninké) collected the quantitative data using a structured and closed questionnaire. The interviewers conducted the survey by telephone. They used tablets equipped with Open Data Kit (ODK) software to administer the questionnaire [28,29].
We conceptualised the collected variables in accordance with Bruchon-Schweitzer’s integrative and multifactorial model [30]. This model has good content validity for this study as it integrates most of the variables identified in the literature review. According to the model, we divided the factors in our study into three groups: situational, dispositional, and transactional.
Situational factors are socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, region, education level, marital status and economic well-being score. Dispositional factors are knowledge about the cause of the disease, symptoms, modes of transmission and availability of treatment and other variables such as trust in government, information seeking and trust in different information sources (institutions, national media, social networks, health professionals and other applications). Transactional factors are concerns about the epidemic and psychosocial well-being [31]. The independent variables are defined in Appendix 1.
We measured the acceptability (the dependent variable) using a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly agree = 5 not at all agree = 1). It was transformed into binary variables (Yes = Strongly agree and Agree) to determine acceptability levels and identify associated factors.
The qualitative survey was guided by the results of the quantitative analyses. Using a guide formulated from the preliminary descriptive results, the average individual interview duration was 37 minutes. Of the 30 interviews, 28 were conducted in Wolof.
Data analysis
The quantitative analyses were carried out using R software version 4.0.2. The quantitative variables are described through the mean with its standard deviation and the qualitative variables through the frequencies. We used the Student’s test to compare mean ages, and the Chi2 test to compare other characteristics with a 5% alpha risk. We used binomial logistic regression in the multivariate analysis. We ran two models to determine the factors associated with the acceptability of management of home contacts (model 1) and those associated with care of simple home cases (model 2). We included all variables with p-values below 0.25 in the original models [32]. We used the step-by-step top-down selection procedure in each model to construct the final model. We individually removed variables that did not improve the model. We used the likelihood ratio test compare nested models [33]. We used this multivariate analysis determine adjusted Odds Ratios (ORaj).
For the qualitative data, we transcribed the interviews in full in French and then conducted a manual content analysis [34].
According to the mixed-method approach, divergences and convergences are taken into account in the presentation of the results, particularly concerning the percentages of acceptability of home care measures [35].
Ethics
The study was approved by the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Senegal (SEN/20/23).
RESULTS
The average age of the respondents was 34.70 ± 14.20 years. Males represented 54.6%. In our study, 64.3% of the respondents regularly sought information about COVID-19. The proportion of respondents who trusted institutional information was 56.7% (Appendix 2).
The proportion of participants who accepted care for simple COVID-19 cases at home was 78.5%. In the qualitative survey, some respondents thought that this high percentage was justified by the capacity of the hospitals: “We had said that the hospitals are full to bursting point, so those with simple cases of COVID, it is better to leave them in t he homes and treat them from there and those who are serious cases are taken to hospital “(F, 20 years old, Kaolack). For others, this result was astonishing: “I’m not for that, it’s not safe. Even if the individual has simple COVID-19, it is better to take him and take care of him, otherwise he can contaminate people” (F, 33, Fatick). Furthermore, 48.6% of the participants did not accept the management of COVID-19 contacts at home. The respondents explained this by a need for risk reduction: “If you are a contact and the disease is asymptomatic, if you are allowed to be in contact with other people, it can be a risk. So it is better to isolate the person until the incubation period passes. “ (H, 40 years old, Thiès).
The proportion of acceptability of management for home contacts among participants with a good knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus was 56.1% while those with poor knowledge were 39.0% (p<0.001). The proportion of acceptability of care of simple cases at home among participants who believed that treatment was available was 85.5%, while that of others was 74.8% (p=0.001) (Appendix 3).
Table 1 shows that the acceptability of management for home-based contacts could be based on trust in the government to fight the epidemic (ORaj: 1.51 [95%CI: 1.10,2.08]), knowledge about the modes of transmission of the virus (ORaj: 1.77 [95%CI: 1.27,2.48]), concern about the epidemic (ORaj: 0.68 [95%CI: 0.50,0.93]), and regularly searching for information on COVID-19 (ORaj: 2.39 [95%CI: 1.76,3.26]).
The acceptability of care of simple cases at home could be predicted by knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus (ORaj: 1.55 [95%CI: 1.04,2.28]), regular research of information on COVID-19 (ORaj: 2.12 [95%CI: 1.45,3.12]), wealth based on the score of economic well-being compared to poverty (ORaj: 0.46 [95%CI: 0.29,0.72]), belief in the existence of treatment (ORaj: 1.82 [95%CI: 1.19,2.83]), and trust in institutional information (ORaj: 2.10 [95%CI: 1.43,3.10]).
DISCUSSION
The study found that while respondents supported care for simple cases of COVID-19 at home, they were more cautious about management for home contacts. These results are interesting given the adoption of this strategy by MoHSA [36]. Highlighted by the qualitative survey, these results can be justified by the fact that the participants are concerned about health system overload, and accept their care at the community level. However, participants are more divided on the management of contacts. WHO recommends isolation of contacts for 14 days after the last exposure with a confirmed case [2]. During the Ebola epidemic, this isolation period was 21 days [37]. A British survey revealed that only 10.9% of contacts adhere to quarantine, and 18.2% adhere to self-isolation [38]. Some of the factors preventing adherence to the isolation may be related to social and financial charges [39]. The 14 days for COVID-19 are difficult to enforce as they take place in the home, and may expose the community to transmission of the virus if people do not isolate themselves. Thus, illustrated by the qualitative survey, these results can be explained by the unknown status of these contacts who may be asymptomatic and then transmit the disease. The experience of the Ebola epidemic in Senegal had shown a negative perception of risk around contacts because people considered them infected with the virus [37]. In addition to strengthening the monitoring of household contacts, efforts should be made to increase people’s understanding of these measures through public health counselling, explaining the importance of ECP of household contacts to reduce transmission, and strong local and social support networks to raise awareness [40].
The study in Senegal found that individuals who trusted institutional sources were more likely to accept care from simple cases at home. Similarly, trust in government in the fight against the epidemic was positively associated with the acceptability of management for home-based contacts. This finding is similar to the study in Israel and China [41] which showed that trust in institutions represented a ‘ reservoir of favourable attitudes and good will‘ during the COVID epidemic [42].
Good knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus was positively associated with the acceptability of contact management and care of simple cases at home. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the MoHSA has been explaining to the population the importance of respecting collective and individual prevention measures [8]. These prevention measures have been defined as necessary to curb the spread of the virus [43]. Two studies conducted on HIV have shown that individuals with a good knowledge of the modes of transmission of the virus have a better knowledge of the modes of prevention [44,45]. A study conducted in Senegal in April 2020 showed that barrier gestures seemed to be well followed [46]. Compliance with these measures, together with knowledge of how the virus is transmitted, may explain the good acceptability of management among populations.
The regular search for information on COVID-19 was positively associated with the acceptability of contact management and care of simple cases at home. The information provides knowledge that the recipient did not possess or could not foresee [47]. This definition recognises that information as an element of knowledge reduces ignorance about COVID-19. This knowledge will enable the community to consider the extent of the current context and adhere to public health measures. A systematic review showed that the provision of information is an important factor in influencing public acceptability of the authorities’ measures [48]. This leads to a better understanding of the disease and autonomous decision-making in the light of the evolution of the pandemic. This finding seems consistent because people know better what is good for them and are therefore reluctant to accept an intervention that interferes with their own decisions [48].
Belief in the existence of treatment is positively associated with the acceptability of care in simple cases at home. To date, no specific medication is recommended to prevent or treat infection of the new coronavirus [49]. At the beginning of the epidemic, Senegal adopted a treatment protocol based on the treatment of patients with hydroxychloroquine [50] and later with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin [51]. This perception of the population in Senegal can be explained by the national communication on the “encouraging” results of this protocol [51], which has become a source of hope in the event of contamination despite the risks involved in its acceptability.
Concern about the epidemic is negatively associated with the acceptability of management for home contacts. Health risks or threats, such as crises, involve emotional connotations and uncertainty about their health and economic implications [52]. These risks would lead to concern about the pandemic which may be due to the prospect of undesirable future consequences [53] and may explain this attitude.
Limitations
Our study has certain limitations. It only involved people who had a mobile phone, thus excluding marginalised populations. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits our ability to draw conclusions about causality. However, the sample is representative of the Senegalese population and the use of mixed methods allowed for a better understanding of the results.
CONCLUSION
This study shows that being regularly informed about the disease, knowing how it is transmitted, and trusting institutions are important factors in the acceptance of COVID-19 management at the community level. It will be important for the authorities to consider and integrate these aspects for a more effective strategy. However, it is also necessary to have messages that are adapted and targeted according to the categories of the population.
Data Availability
Data are available upon request to the authors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data are available upon request to the authors.
FUNDING
This research was conducted as part of the ARIACOV programme (A ppui à la Riposte Africaine à l’épidémie de Covid-19), which receives funding from the French Development Agency through the “COVID-19 - Santé en commun” initiative.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the five interviewers who participated in the data collection: Tabaski Diouf, Coumba Sow, Fatoumata Dieme, Rokhaya Gueye and Mafoudya Camara. To our technical partner Cloudlyyours, who have been able to put in place all the necessary tools for data collection.