Internal Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa

Author(s):  
Vollan O. Ochieng ◽  
Razak M Gyasi ◽  
Blessing U Mberu
BioScience ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (7) ◽  
pp. 664-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Salerno ◽  
Jacob Mwalyoyo ◽  
Tim Caro ◽  
Emily Fitzherbert ◽  
Monique Borgerhoff Mulder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashanth Selvaraj ◽  
Bradley G Wagner ◽  
Dennis L Chao ◽  
Maina L'Azou Jackson ◽  
J. Gabrielle Breugelmans ◽  
...  

How COVID-19 vaccine is distributed within low- and middle-income countries has received little attention outside of equity or logistical concerns but may ultimately affect campaign impact in terms of infections, severe cases, or deaths averted. In this study we examined whether subnational (urban-rural) prioritization may affect the cumulative two-year impact on disease transmission and burden of a vaccination campaign using an agent-based model of COVID-19 in a representative Sub-Saharan Africa country setting. We simulated a range of vaccination strategies that differed by urban-rural prioritization, age group prioritization, timing of introduction, and final coverage level. Urban prioritization averted more infections in only a narrow set of scenarios, when internal migration rates were low and vaccination was started by day 30 of an outbreak. Rural prioritization was the optimal strategy for all other scenarios, e.g., with higher internal migration rates or later start dates, due to the presence of a large immunological naive rural population. Among other factors, timing of the vaccination campaign was important to determining maximum impact, and delays as short as 30 days prevented larger campaigns from having the same impact as smaller campaigns that began earlier. The optimal age group for prioritization depended on choice of metric, as prioritizing older adults consistently averted more deaths across all of the scenarios. While guidelines exist for these latter factors, urban-rural allocation is an orthogonal factor that we predict to affect impact and warrants consideration as countries plan the scale-up of their vaccination campaigns.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres J. Garcia ◽  
Deepa K. Pindolia ◽  
Kenneth K. Lopiano ◽  
Andrew J. Tatem

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 533-537
Author(s):  
Lorenz von Seidlein ◽  
Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn ◽  
Podjanee Jittmala ◽  
Sasithon Pukrittayakamee

RTS,S/AS01 is the most advanced vaccine to prevent malaria. It is safe and moderately effective. A large pivotal phase III trial in over 15 000 young children in sub-Saharan Africa completed in 2014 showed that the vaccine could protect around one-third of children (aged 5–17 months) and one-fourth of infants (aged 6–12 weeks) from uncomplicated falciparum malaria. The European Medicines Agency approved licensing and programmatic roll-out of the RTSS vaccine in malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa. WHO is planning further studies in a large Malaria Vaccine Implementation Programme, in more than 400 000 young African children. With the changing malaria epidemiology in Africa resulting in older children at risk, alternative modes of employment are under evaluation, for example the use of RTS,S/AS01 in older children as part of seasonal malaria prophylaxis. Another strategy is combining mass drug administrations with mass vaccine campaigns for all age groups in regional malaria elimination campaigns. A phase II trial is ongoing to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the RTSS in combination with antimalarial drugs in Thailand. Such novel approaches aim to extract the maximum benefit from the well-documented, short-lasting protective efficacy of RTS,S/AS01.


1993 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-556
Author(s):  
Lado Ruzicka

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document