Prevention of COVID-19 in Internally Displaced Persons Camps in War-Torn North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses a grave threat to refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). We examined knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to COVID-19 prevention among IDPs in war-torn Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Methods: Mixed-methods study with qualitative (focus group discussions, [FGDs]) and quantitative (52-item survey questionnaire) data collection and synthesis. Results: FGDs (N=23) and survey questionnaires (N=164 IDPs; N=143 comparison group) were conducted in May 2020. FGD participants provided narratives of violence that they had fled. IDPs were statistically more likely to have larger household size, experience more extreme poverty, have lower educational attainment, and have less access to information through media and internet versus the comparison group (P<.05 for the comparison group). IDPs had a high level of awareness (99%) and fear (98%) of COVID-19, but lower specific knowledge (15% sufficient knowledge versus 30% among the comparison group, P<.0001), a difference which remained significant in a multivariable model adjusting for confounding. IDPs faced major barriers to implementing COVID-19 prevention measures. Physical distancing was impossible for IDPs in crowded shelters, and 70% reported coming in close contact with someone other than a family member within the past 24 hours (versus 56% of the comparison group, P=.014). Frequent movements in and out of the camp for subsistence left IDPs vulnerable to the introduction of COVID-19: 61% left the camp on a daily basis and 65% had received a visitor in the past month. Despite acceptance of hand hygiene for prevention, 92% lacked soap (versus 65% of the comparison group, P<.0001). IDPs’ desire for peace and to return to their native homes, where COVID-19 precautions could be feasibly implemented, overshadowed their perceived benefits of measures such as a COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions: These findings provide empiric evidence supporting the vulnerability of IDPs to COVID-19 and call for action to protect neglected displaced populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".