Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis

Abstract

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.

What have we learned so far about COVID-19 volunteering in the UK? A rapid review of the literature

“…Instead of coercion, scientific advisors have called for 'supported isolation', which includes providing appropriate accommodation, domestic assistance, and financial support (6,14). The latter is more in line with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to avoid coercion in public health (15,16) and to adopt instead a community engagement approach (17,18).…”

“…In this regard, studies reviewed highlight the need for local councils to improve the way support is provided to volunteering groups and other community-based organisations (25). Such support is key for community engagement in pandemic conditions, and as a way to reduce contagion (17,18,20,21).…”

“…Community engagement in public health refers to the involvement and participation of individuals, groups and structures in the decision-making, planning, design, governance and delivery of services (18,19). Past pandemics have provided sufficient evidence that community engagement is crucial in fostering public health in pandemic conditions, with community action groups playing a key role in reducing contagion (17,20,21).…”

Understanding how communities respond to COVID-19: experiences from the Orthodox Jewish communities of Antwerp city

“…Their engagement contributes to an effective and community-adapted outbreak response by merging scientific knowledge and expertise from outside the community with ‘insider’ knowledge of local sensitivities. Especially the importance of engaging religious leaders in this process has already been clearly established in the literature on previous disease outbreaks [ 44 ]. For instance, experiences of the 2013–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted the need for engaging with local and religious leaders and trusted peers to create an environment of trust within the growing climate of suspicion and fear towards governments’ and international NGOs’ motives in the outbreak response [ 45 ].…”

International experiences with co-production and people centredness offer lessons for covid-19 responses

“…Similarly, during the covid-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities in many countries have repeatedly imposed top down measures, which, while informed by research, often took little account of the communities affected. 40 Developing covid-19 measures that are feasible and practical is crucial, as is understanding what communities value and need in times of crisis. Such measures will not be achieved unless communities are encouraged and enabled to become active partners in research and the provision of healthcare.…”