RESULTS: A noticeable variation between the RDT (Alltest Biotech, China) and nPCR results was observed, for RDT 78% (46/59) were P. falciparum positive, 6.8% (4/59) were co-infected with both P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, 15.3% (9/59) were negative by the RDT. However, when the nPCR was applied only 44.1% (26/59) and 55.9% (33/59) was P. falciparum positive and negative respectively. The pfhrp2 was further amplified form all nPCR positive samples. Only 17 DNA samples were positive from the 26 positive P. falciparum, interestingly, variation in band sizes was observed and further confirmed by DNA sequencing, and sequencing analysis revealed a high-level of genetic diversity of the pfhrp2 gene in the parasite population from the study area. However, despite extreme sequence variation, diversity of PfHRP2 does not appear to affect RDT performance.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2018 to December 2018 to estimate malaria prevalence amongst the displaced population in Ardamata IDP camp in Al-Geneina City, Sudan. A total of 380 patients with suspected malaria were recruited. Nested polymerase chain reaction (nPCR) assays were performed to detect the Plasmodium genus and species.
Results: Of 380 patients, 232 (61.1%) were positive for malaria. Plasmodium falciparum was the only prevalent species detected amongst the study population. nPCR analysis revealed that none of the samples had Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale or Plasmodium malariae. The malaria prevalence rate was higher amongst males (67.1%) than in females (56.8%), and gender was the only risk factor that was significantly associated with malaria infection (p = .042).
Conclusions: Despite control programmes, malaria remains a significant cause of illness amongst a displaced population. The high prevalence of malaria infection in this study indicates that additional health facilities and control strategies should be implemented in displaced camps and the surrounding areas.
METHODS: Consortium research teams conducted online surveys in 30 countries. Sampling methods included convenience, online panels, and population-representative. Primary outcomes included sexual behaviors, partner violence, and SRH service use, and we compared 3 months prior to and during policy measures to mitigate COVID-19. We conducted meta-analyses for primary outcomes and graded the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS: Among 4546 respondents with casual partners, condom use stayed the same for 3374 (74.4%), and 640 (14.1%) reported a decline. Fewer respondents reported physical or sexual partner violence during COVID-19 measures (1063 of 15 144, 7.0%) compared to before COVID-19 measures (1469 of 15 887, 9.3%). COVID-19 measures impeded access to condoms (933 of 10 790, 8.7%), contraceptives (610 of 8175, 7.5%), and human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infection (HIV/STI) testing (750 of 1965, 30.7%). Pooled estimates from meta-analysis indicate that during COVID-19 measures, 32.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.9%-42.1%) of people needing HIV/STI testing had hindered access, 4.4% (95% CI, 3.4%-5.4%) experienced partner violence, and 5.8% (95% CI, 5.4%-8.2%) decreased casual partner condom use (moderate certainty of evidence for each outcome). Meta-analysis findings were robust in sensitivity analyses that examined country income level, sample size, and sampling strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: Open science methods are feasible to organize research studies as part of emergency responses. The initial COVID-19 wave impacted SRH behaviors and access to services across diverse global settings.