Summary An outbreak of Ebola disease was reported from Gulu district, Uganda, on 8 October 2000. The outbreak was characterized by fever and haemorrhagic manifestations, and affected health workers and the general population of Rwot‐Obillo, a village 14 km north of Gulu town. Later, the outbreak spread to other parts of the country including Mbarara and Masindi districts. Response measures included surveillance, community mobilization, case and logistics management. Three coordination committees were formed: National Task Force (NTF), a District Task Force (DTF) and an Interministerial Task Force (IMTF). The NTF and DTF were responsible for coordination and follow‐up of implementation of activities at the national and district levels, respectively, while the IMTF provided political direction and handled sensitive issues related to stigma, trade, tourism and international relations. The international response was coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the umbrella organization of the Global Outbreak and Alert Response Network. A WHO/CDC case definition for Ebola was adapted and used to capture four categories of cases, namely, the ‘alert’, ‘suspected’, ‘probable’ and ‘confirmed cases’. Guidelines for identification and management of cases were developed and disseminated to all persons responsible for surveillance, case management, contact tracing and Information Education Communication (IEC). For the duration of the epidemic that lasted up to 16 January 2001, a total of 425 cases with 224 deaths were reported countrywide. The case fatality rate was 53%. The attack rate (AR) was highest in women. The average AR for Gulu district was 12.6 cases/10 000 inhabitants when the contacts of all cases were considered and was 4.5 cases/10 000 if limited only to contacts of laboratory confirmed cases. The secondary AR was 2.5% when nearly 5000 contacts were followed up for 21 days. Uganda was finally declared Ebola free on 27 February 2001, 42 days after the last case was reported. The Government's role in coordination of both local and international support was vital. The NTF and the corresponding district committees harmonized implementation of a mutually agreed programme. Community mobilization using community‐based resource persons and political organs, such as Members of Parliament was effective in getting information to the public. This was critical in controlling the epidemic. Past experience in epidemic management has shown that in the absence of regular provision of information to the public, there are bound to be deleterious rumours. Consequently rumour was managed by frank and open discussion of the epidemic, providing daily updates, fact sheets and press releases. Information was regularly disseminated to communities through mass media and press conferences. Thus all levels of the community spontaneously demonstrated solidarity and response to public health interventions. Even in areas of relative insecurity, rebel abductions diminished considerably.

This was recognized as the largest reported outbreak of EHF in the world. Control interventions were very successful in containing the epidemic. The community structures used to contain the epidemic have continued to perform well after containment of the outbreak, and have proved useful in the identification of other outbreaks. This was also the first outbreak response co-ordinated by the WHO under the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, a voluntary organization recently created to co-ordinate technical and financial resources to developing countries during outbreaks.

This is the first report of a change over a period of 6 years in male and female sexual behaviour, assessed at the population level, that may partly explain the observed decline in HIV seroprevalence in young pregnant women in urban Uganda. This result should encourage AIDS control programmes to pursue their prevention activities.

Case-fatality rate is lower for this strain than for the other 3 Ebola species known to be pathogenic to humans.

Background: There has been a rapid spread of Ebola Viral Hemorrhagic disease in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone since March 2014. Since this is the first time of a major Ebola outbreak in West Africa; it is possible there is lack of understanding of the epidemic in the communities, lack of experience among the health workers to manage the cases and limited capacities for rapid response. The main objective of this article is to share Uganda's experience in controlling similar Ebola outbreaks and to suggest some lessons that could inform the control of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Methods: The article is based on published papers, reports of previous Ebola outbreaks, response plans and experiences of individuals who have participated in the control of Ebola epidemics in Uganda. Lessons learnt: The success in the control of Ebola epidemics in Uganda has been due to high political support, effective coordination through national and district task forces. In addition there has been active surveillance, strong community mobilization using village health teams and other community resources persons, an efficient laboratory system that has capacity to provide timely results. These have coupled with effective case management and infection control and the involvement of development partners who commit resources with shared responsibility. Conclusion: Several factors have contributed to the successful quick containment of Ebola outbreaks in Uganda. West African countries experiencing Ebola outbreaks could draw some lessons from the Uganda experience and adapt them to contain the Ebola epidemic.