IntroductionCommunity engagement has been considered a fundamental component of past outbreaks, such as Ebola. However, there is concern over the lack of involvement of communities and ‘bottom-up’ approaches used within COVID-19 responses thus far. Identifying how community engagement approaches have been used in past epidemics may support more robust implementation within the COVID-19 response.MethodologyA rapid evidence review was conducted to identify how community engagement is used for infectious disease prevention and control during epidemics. Three databases were searched in addition to extensive snowballing for grey literature. Previous epidemics were limited to Ebola, Zika, SARS, Middle East respiratory syndromeand H1N1 since 2000. No restrictions were applied to study design or language.ResultsFrom 1112 references identified, 32 articles met our inclusion criteria, which detail 37 initiatives. Six main community engagement actors were identified: local leaders, community and faith-based organisations, community groups, health facility committees, individuals and key stakeholders. These worked on different functions: designing and planning, community entry and trust building, social and behaviour change communication, risk communication, surveillance and tracing, and logistics and administration.ConclusionCOVID-19’s global presence and social transmission pathways require social and community responses. This may be particularly important to reach marginalised populations and to support equity-informed responses. Aligning previous community engagement experience with current COVID-19 community-based strategy recommendations highlights how communities can play important and active roles in prevention and control. Countries worldwide are encouraged to assess existing community engagement structures and use community engagement approaches to support contextually specific, acceptable and appropriate COVID-19 prevention and control measures.

Introduction Community engagement has been considered a fundamental component of past outbreaks, such as Ebola. The COVID-19 pandemic and its control efforts require social actions and behaviours, all of which place a large reliance on individual and community compliance, highlighting the need for appropriate community engagement to support such work. However, there is concern over the lack of involvement of communities within COVID-19 thus far. Identifying how community engagement approaches have been used in past epidemics may support more robust implementation of community engagement within COVID-19 response. Methodology A rapid evidence review was conducted to identity how community engagement is used for infectious disease prevention and control during epidemics. Three databases (PubMed, CINHAL and Scopus) were searched in addition to extensive snowballing for grey literature. Previous epidemics were limited to Ebola, Zika, SARS, MERS and H1N1 since 2000. No restrictions were applied to study design or language, though articles must have detailed a minimum of one community engagement for infection prevention and control initiative. All authors participated in searching, screening, and data extraction, with a minimum of two authors at each stage. Results From 1,112 references identified in our search, 32 articles met our inclusion criteria. All but 3 articles were published on or after 2015 which details 37 community engagement initiatives for Ebola (n=28), Zika (n=5) and H1N1 (n=4). Twenty-seven of these initiatives were implemented in low-income countries and 10 from high-income countries. Six broad community engagement actors were identified: local leaders, community and faith-based organisations, community groups, health facility or community health committees, individuals and key stakeholders. These actors worked across six different functions: designing and planning, community entry and trust-building, social and behaviour change communication, risk communication, surveillance and tracing, and logistics and administration. Leaders were the most prevalent actor being engaged, and behaviour change communication, risk communication, and surveillance and tracing were the most common function of community engagement. Implementation considerations community engagement in prevention and control of COVID-19 are reported within. Conclusion COVID-19 global presence and social transmission pathways require social and community responses. This may be particularly important to reach marginalised populations and support equity-informed responses. Previous experience from outbreaks shows that community engagement can take many forms and include different actors and approaches who support various prevention and control activities. Countries worldwide are encouraged to assess existing community engagement structures, and utilise community engagement approaches to support contextually specific, acceptable and appropriate COVID-19 prevention and control measures.

IntroductionWidespread vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the most effective ways to control, and ideally, end the global COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rates vary widely across countries and populations and are influenced by complex sociocultural, political, economic and psychological factors. Community engagement is an integral strategy within immunisation campaigns and has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance. As evidence on community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake is emerging and constantly changing, research that lessens the knowledge-to-practice gap by providing regular and up-to-date evidence on current best-practice is essential.Methods and analysisA living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies.Ethics and disseminationThe initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews’ social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022301996.

Infection prevention and control measures are effective at protecting patients and healthcare workers from healthcare-acquired infections, averting onward transmission of the disease and mitigating the impact of the outbreak on the healthcare system. This study assessed the compliance of public hospitals and isolation facilities with a set of standards for COVID-19 infection prevention and control. A 35-point questionnaire was developed and utilized to collect data from selected facilities in 38 local government units across the country. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, and differences between island groups were tested using Pearson’s χ2 test for categorical variables. The results indicate that hospitals reported better infection prevention and control preparedness and compliance than temporary treatment and monitoring facilities in the domains of engineering and administrative controls. However, weak compliance was observed in a number of indicators for waste management in both types of facilities. These suggest that periodic monitoring and the augmentation of resources are necessary to sustain adherence to standards and to immediately address compliance gaps. In addition, systemic improvements through sufficient planning and long-term investments are required to sustain infection prevention and control practices over time.

No abstract