Objective. This study aimed at determining the various types of home-based remedies, mode of administration, prevalence of use, and their relevance in reducing the risk of infection, hospital admission, severe disease, and death. Methods. The study design is an open cohort of all participants who presented for testing for COVID-19 at the Infectious Disease Treatment Centre (Tamale) and were followed up for a period of six weeks. A nested case-control study was designed. Numerical data were analysed using STATA version 14, and qualitative data were thematically analysed. Results. A total of 882 participants made up of 358 (40.6%) cases and 524 (59.4%) unmatched controls took part in the study. The prevalence of usage of home-based remedies to prevent COVID-19 was 29.6% (n = 261). These include drinks (34.1% (n = 100)), changes in eating habits/food (33.8% (n = 99)), physical exercise (18.8% (n = 55)), steam inhalation (9.9% (n = 29)), herbal baths (2.7% (n = 8)), and gurgle (0.7 (n = 2)). Participants who practiced any form of home-based therapy were protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.28 (0.20–0.39)), severe/critical COVID-19 (OR = 0.15 (0.05–0.48)), hospital admission (OR = 0.15 (0.06–0.38)), and death (OR = 0.31 (0.07–1.38)). Analysis of the various subgroups of the home-based therapies, however, demonstrated that not all the home-based remedies were effective. Steam inhalation and herbal baths were associated with 26.6 (95% CI = 6.10–116.24) and 2.7 (95% CI = 0.49–14.78) times increased risk of infection, respectively. However, change in diet (AOR = 0.01 (0.00–0.13)) and physical exercise (AOR = 0.02 (0.00–0.26)) remained significantly associated with a reduced risk of infection. We described results of thematic content analysis regarding the common ingredients in the drinks, diets, and other home-based methods administered. Conclusion. Almost a third of persons presenting for COVID-19 test were involved in some form of home-based remedy to prevent COVID-19. Steam inhalation and herbal baths increased risk of COVID-19 infection, while physical exercise and dietary changes were protective against COVID-19 infection and hospital admission. Future protocols might consider inclusion of physical activity and dietary changes based on demonstrated health gains.

Objective To investigate risk factors for ectopic pregnancy among pregnant women attending the Korle‐Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana. Methods In an unmatched case–control study from September to November 2015, 104 women with ectopic pregnancy (cases) were compared with 208 women with intrauterine pregnancy (controls). Data were collected by interviewer‐administered questionnaire and record review. Bivariable analysis was used to compare characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between risk factors and ectopic pregnancy. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were reported. Results Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy were being single (aOR, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.15–14.65), sexual debut at younger than 15 years (aOR, 36.4; 95% CI, 2.49–532.49), multiple sexual partners (aOR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.76–13.36), previous instrumental evacuation of uterus (aOR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.20–27.99); previous diagnosis of infertility (aOR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.36–27.28), being uninsured (aOR, 11.8; 95% CI, 4.23–32.74), and condom use (aOR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.36–27.28). Conclusion Women who were single with early sexual intercourse, multiple partners, instrumental evacuation of the uterus, and diagnosis of infertility were at risk of ectopic pregnancy. Identification of these factors should facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

Introduction Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), which started in late December, 2019, has spread to affect 216 countries and territories around the world. Globally, the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been growing exponentially. There is pressure on countries to flatten the curves and break transmission. Most countries are practicing partial or total lockdown, vaccination, massive education on hygiene, social distancing, isolation of cases, quarantine of exposed and various screening approaches such as temperature and symptom-based screening to break the transmission. Some studies outside Africa have found the screening for fever using non-contact thermometers to lack good sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of clinical symptoms in accurately predicting a final diagnosis of COVID-19 disease in the Ghanaian setting. Method The study analysed screening and test data of COVID-19 suspected, probable and contacts for the months of March to August 2020. A total of 1,986 participants presenting to Tamale Teaching hospital were included in the study. Logistic regression and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis were carried out. Results Overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 16.8%. Those with symptoms had significantly higher positivity rate (21.6%) compared with asymptomatic (17.0%) [chi-squared 15.5, p-value, <0.001]. Patients that were positive for SARS-CoV-2 were 5.9 [3.9–8.8] times more likely to have loss of sense of smell and 5.9 [3.8–9.3] times more likely to having loss of sense of taste. Using history of fever as a screening tool correctly picked up only 14.8% of all true positives of SARS-CoV-2 infection and failed to pick up 86.2% of positive cases. Using cough alone would detect 22.4% and miss 87.6%. Non-contact thermometer used alone, as a screening tool for COVID-19 at a cut-off of 37.8 would only pick 4.8% of positive SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Conclusion The use of fever alone or other symptoms individually [or in combination] as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection is not worthwhile based on ROC analysis. Use of temperature check as a COVID-19 screening tool to allow people into public space irrespective of the temperature cut-off is of little benefit in diagnosing infected persons. We recommend the use of facemask, hand hygiene, social distancing as effective means of preventing infection.