https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-1562
Figures
Abstract
This scoping review used the Arksey and O’Malley approach to explore COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas to identify lessons to inform future health preparedness and response planning. A search of scientific and grey literature for rural COVID-19 preparedness and responses identified 5 668 articles published between 2019 and early 2022. A total of 293 articles were included, of which 160 (54.5%) were from high income countries and 106 (36.2%) from middle income countries. Studies focused mostly on the Maintenance of Essential Health Services (63; 21.5%), Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (60; 20.5%), Coordination and Planning (32; 10.9%); Case Management (30; 10.2%), Social Determinants of Health (29; 10%) and Risk Communication (22; 7.5%). Rural health systems were less prepared and national COVID-19 responses were often not adequately tailored to rural areas. Promising COVID-19 responses involved local leaders and communities, were collaborative and multisectoral, and engaged local cultures. Non-pharmaceutical interventions were applied less, support for access to water and sanitation at scale was weak, and more targeted approaches to the isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts were preferable to blanket lockdowns. Rural pharmacists, community health workers and agricultural extension workers assisted in overcoming shortages of health professionals. Vaccination coverage was hindered by weaker rural health systems. Digital technology enabled better coordination, communication, and access to health services, yet for some was inaccessible. Rural livelihoods and food security were affected through disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains. Important lessons include the need for rural proofing national health preparedness and response and optimizing synergies between top-down planning with localised planning and coordination. Equity-oriented rural health systems strengthening and action on rural social determinants is essential to better prepare for and respond to future outbreaks.
Citation: Dudley L, Couper I, Kannangarage NW, Naidoo S, Ribas CR, Koller TS, et al. (2023) COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Health 3(11): e0002602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002602
Editor: Claire J. Standley, Georgetown University, UNITED STATES
Received: April 10, 2023; Accepted: October 23, 2023; Published: November 15, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Dudley et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The study dataset has been published as an Excel file on the Stellenbosch University institutional research data repository, SUNScholarData. The data can be accessed at DOI: https://doi.org/10.25413/sun.23654193.v1.
Funding: This research was commissioned by WHO to the University of Stellenbosch (2022/1215701-0 to IC). WHO staff had the role of instigator, co-conceptualizer and co-authors in the study. WHO drew funding for this work from grants to the Department for Gender, Equity and Human Rights, WHO/HQ, provided by the Government of Canada (7429308 to WHO;7429315 to WHO). These grants were entitled “Strengthening local and national Primary Health Care and Health Systems for the recovery and resilience of countries in the context of COVID-19” and “ACTA Health Systems and Response Connector Implementation Project: Strengthening the Foundations of COVID19 Response”. The provider of these grants to WHO had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Despite much global coordination and support, and calls for global solidarity, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed numerous inequities across regions, countries and populations experiencing vulnerability. The pandemic magnified chronic under-investment in health systems and in addressing health determinants in rural areas, across all countries, including those classified as low-, and middle income (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) [1].
Many rural populations seeking to access health services typically face challenges related to physical geography, inequity in distribution of healthcare professionals, inadequate infrastructure, a disproportionate concentration of specialised services in urban areas, lack of maintenance and shortages of equipment, undersupply of materials and drugs, and poorer communications and information technology [2–5], all of which would hamper an adequate response to COVID-19.
To support countries in their response to COVID-19, and to help address these inequities in health, the World Health Organization (WHO) 2021 COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP) underlined the importance of equity-oriented approaches and meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged subpopulations, accounting for the supply and demand side barriers that influence access to effective coverage with COVID-19 related services [6].
Against the backdrop of health inequities associated with place of living, rural poverty and exclusion across countries, it was deemed important to review the available evidence about the COVID-19 health emergency preparedness and response (HEPR) in rural and remote areas. This scoping review therefore aimed to describe and explore the COVID-19 HEPR in rural and remote areas in HIC and LMIC settings. In particular we sought to assess the extent to which COVID-19 HEPR in these settings addressed the components of the WHO SPRP, and to identify the challenges, promising practices and gaps in the evidence in order to inform future policy, planning and research on HEPR in rural and remote settings. In the absence of international standards for defining rural areas, this review accepted all local or regional definitions of rural and remote areas provided in publications reviewed.
In early 2022, WHO issued a call for proposals and terms of reference for a scoping review of literature that explored COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas. WHO’s intent was to gather evidence to inform WHO’s ongoing production of normative guidance and support to Member States for adequate preparedness and response to health emergencies, particularly in rural and remote areas globally. Through a competitive bidding process, a contract for the work was awarded to Stellenbosch University. Commissioned by WHO to help inform ongoing global and national processes and plans to ensure adequate preparedness and response to health emergencies, this review explores the data that is emerging for COVID-19 HEPR in rural and remote areas in all settings.
Methods
The scoping review was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping reviews as modified by Levac et al. and Peters et al. [7, 8]. Scoping reviews, by definition, are a type of knowledge synthesis which follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps [9]. They do not provide a synthesis of effects of interventions but may be used to inform the need for further systematic reviews of the literature [9]. The study protocol was published in The Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2853a/). A glossary of terms is provided as S1 Text.
Eligibility criteria
All scientific journal research articles, study designs, reviews, reports, book chapters, conference presentations and grey literature were included if deemed relevant to the central research question, in all UN languages and published between 2019 and the first quarter of 2022. Studies had to refer to COVID-19 preparedness and response along the categories described in the WHO SPRP 2021 [6]. In addition, studies exploring social determinants of health (SDH) and One Health in relation to COVID-19 were also included. The settings included rural and remote areas in HICs and LMICs as defined in the 2022 World Bank country classifications [10].
Search strategy
Searches were conducted in six electronic databases in March 2022: Medline (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), Social Science Citation index (Web of Science), the Global Index Medicus (includes LILIACS), Africa-wide information (EBSCOHost), and the WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease. These were identified as the most relevant databases where all types of studies on COVID-19 HEPR in rural and remote areas in LMIC and HIC countries could be located. The search strategy for Medline (OVID) shown in Box 1 was used as a basis for other searches. A structured search of grey literature in targeted repositories, websites and databases was conducted in April 2022, detailed in S1 Table.
Box 1. Search strategy for Medline (OVID)
Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions <1946 to March 14, 2022>
1 Coronavirus/
2 coronavirus infections/ or covid-19/
3 (2019 nCoV or 2019nCoV).tw.
4 COVID.mp.
5 ("SARS coronavirus 2" or "SARS‐like coronavirus" or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus‐2").mp.
6 SARS-CoV-2.mp. or SARS-CoV-2/
7 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.mp.
8 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7
9 limit 8 to yr = "2019 -Current"
10 Rural Health/ or Hospitals, Rural/ or Rural Population/ or Rural Health Services/
11 ((disadvantage* or underserved) adj2 (area* or population* or district* or communit*)).mp.
12 (remote adj2 (area* or population* or district* or communit*)).tw.
13 ((Rural or pastoral or provincial) adj2 (area* or population* or district* or communit*)).tw.
14 ((remote or inaccessible or isolated) adj2 (area* or population* or district* or communit*)).tw.
15 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14
16 9 and 15
17 (preparedness or preparing or prepared).tw.
18 (readiness or willingness).tw.
19 (emergency adj2 respons*).tw.
20 (outbreak adj2 respon*).tw.
21 vaccine hesitancy.mp.
22 Vaccination/ or vaccine uptake.mp.
23 (Access* or "access to care" or knowledge or availability or provision or guidelines or "National policy" or "strategic plan").tw.
24 district nurs*.mp.
25 exp Health Services Accessibility/
26 (equity or availability).tw.
27 "Delivery of Health Care"/ or (care adj2 provision).tw.
28 health infrastructure.mp.
29 Health Personnel/ or healthcare worker*.mp.
30 Supply chain.mp.
31 (Surveillance or "epidemiological investigation").mp.
32 diagnostic services/ or clinical laboratory services/ or diagnostic screening programs/ or mass screening/ or mobile health units/
33 Case Management/
34 Health Promotion/ or Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice/
35 exp Contact Tracing/
36 referral.mp. or "Referral and Consultation"/
37 Intensive Care Units/ or intensive care unit*.mp.
38 "follow-up".tw.
39 Rehabilitation/
40 exp Palliative Care/ or palliative.tw
41 exp Burial/ or burial*.tw
42 exp Economics/
43 "costs and cost analysis"/ or "cost allocation"/ or cost-benefit analysis/ or "cost control"/ or "cost of illness"/
44 Economic Development/
45 ("out of pocket" or expenses or DALY or QALY).tw.
46 ((health or medical) adj2 (cost* or expense* or expenditure* or insurance)).mp.
47 Financial Stress/
48 financial hardship.mp.
49 ((social-economic or socio-economic) adj2 impact).mp.
50 "Socioeconomic Factors"/
51 exp Environment/
52 environmental impact.mp.
53 17-52/or
54 16 and 53
Study selection
The search results were imported into Covidence [11]. Two researchers independently reviewed all the titles, abstracts and full texts in a step-wise process using the eligibility criteria described above. The article or source was included if there was a high level of agreement between the researchers. In the case of disagreement, a third researcher arbitrated. Non-English abstracts and full texts were translated to English using Google translate.
Charting the data
An analytical framework was developed to identify standard items to be extracted. The data collection tools were piloted, and data was extracted independently by two senior researchers assisted by three research assistants, with cross checking of all data extracted. The final data was exported to Microsoft Excel Version 16 (Microsoft Corporation, USA) for storage and safety and to enable offline access [12]. The research team compared and discussed the data charting iteratively to ensure consistency. No critical appraisal was undertaken to assess the quality of the included studies in keeping with the purpose and approach of a scoping review.
Collating, summarising and reporting the results
A descriptive analysis of the data provided an understanding of the distribution of the categorical variables and main characteristics of the dataset, and is reported in the results section as frequencies and percentages of studies by World Bank category, country setting, year of publication, study population, particular risk groups, study design, and WHO SPRP pillars as listed in Box 2 below.
Box 2. WHO SPRP pillars
1. Coordination, planning, financing and monitoring;
2. Risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management;
3. Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures;
4. Points of entry, international travel and transport, and mass gatherings;
5. Laboratories and diagnostics;
6. Infection prevention and control, and protection of the health workforce;
7. Case management, clinical operations, and therapeutics;
8. Operational support and logistics, and supply chains;
9. Maintaining essential health services and systems; and
10. Vaccination.
Synthesis of the content was guided by the study aims and objectives, and each pillar was analysed in terms of key findings, successes and enablers, challenges and barriers to COVID-19 preparedness and response, gaps in the evidence and further research required. A thematic analysis was conducted and is presented along the following main deductive themes that reflect the final selected SPRP pillars as well as Social Determinants of Health: (i) Coordination, planning, financing and monitoring; (ii) Risk communication, community engagement (RCCE) and infodemic management; (iii) Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (PHSM); (iv) Laboratories and diagnostics; (v) Infection prevention and control (IPC), and protection of the health workforce; (vi) Case management, clinical operations, and therapeutics; (vii) Maintaining essential health services and systems (MEHSS); (viii) Vaccination; (IX) Social Determinants of Health (SDH). Within each of these themes we used an inductive approach drawn from grounded theory to analyse the data [13]. The data within each theme was coded using both hand-coding and nVivo software version 12 to identify emergent subthemes, which were discussed iteratively within the study team. We described the subthemes of each of the main themes in the narrative, illustrating this with study examples.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses -Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines shaped the reporting [14]. The completed PRISMA-ScR Checklist is provided as S1 Checklist.
Results
The search identified a total of 5 668 records, of which 293 were included in the review after the sequential removal of duplicates and screening of the titles, abstracts and full texts. See Fig 1. The main reason for excluding records were that they were not rural or remote (130 publications), were opinion articles, commentaries, letters, interviews or editorial reviews (113 publications), or did not include COVID-19 preparedness or response (72 publications). A list of the included studies is provided as S2 Table.
Description of included studies
Of the 293 included studies, 49 (16.7%) were published in 2020, 189 (64.5%) in 2021, and 55 (18.8%) in the first 3 months of 2022. The majority were conducted in HICs (54.5%) and MICs (36.2%) (Fig 2). They focused entirely on rural areas (157, 53.6%) or included a rural sub-analysis within a national or regional study 136 (46.4%). Of the WHO regions, almost half (135, 46.1%) were from the Americas, 48 (16.4%) from the Western Pacific, 35 (12%) from South East Asia, 35 (12%) from Africa, 21 (7.2%) from Europe, and 11 (3.8%) from the Eastern Mediterranean; 10 (3.4%) included countries across more than one WHO region. The five countries with the most included studies were the USA (105, 35.8%), India (25, 8.5%), China (20, 6.8%), Australia (16, 5.5%) and Canada (10, 3.4%).
Of the 10 WHO SPRP pillars, many publications were on Maintaining essential health services and systems (MEHSS) (63, 21.5%) and Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (PHSM) (60, 20,5%) (Fig 3). We found very few studies on Points of entry, international travel and transport, and mass gatherings (3 publications), Operational support and logistics, and supply chains (3), and One Health (2) and excluded these in further analysis.
The proportion of HIC and LMIC studies in each included pillar varied, with HIC studies forming the bulk of the MEHSS, Vaccination, Case management and Laboratory and diagnostics groups. There was a more even distribution between HICs and LMIC’s in the Surveillance and PHSM and Infection prevention and control (IPC) groups, and more LMIC publications on Risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) and SDH Table 1.
The main study designs were cross sectional (91, 31.1%), case reports or case series (56, 19,1%), qualitative methods (46, 15.7%), mixed methods (25, 8.5%), data modelling including geospatial modelling (22, 7.5%), and cohort studies (15, 5.1%). Very few randomised control trials (4, 1.4%), non-randomised experimental studies (8, 2.7%), systematic reviews (3, 1.0%), or other types of reviews (10, 3.4%) were found.
The study populations were mainly a community (126, 42%), patients or healthcare users (92, 31.4%), or healthcare workers (41, 14.0%). Few studies focussed primarily on policymakers (10, 3.4%), combinations of different populations (13, 4.4%), informal health workers (3, 1.0%) or populations outside of the health sector such as teachers, police, farmworkers and other essential workers (8, 2.7%). Many studies did not identify a specific risk group (155, 53.5%). Of the 138 studies that did, health care workers (42, 30.4%), indigenous communities or remote islanders (23, 16.7%), chronic disease patients (20, 14.5%), and older people (16, 11.6%) were the main risk groups. Farmers and farmworkers (6, 4.3%), other essential workers (7, 5.0%), women (6, 4.3%), children and adolescents (5, 3.6%), ethnic groups (4, 3.0%) and migrants or refugees (2, 1.4%) were specified in a few studies.
Thematic analysis
This section reports on the thematic analysis of the included studies. We combined a deductive and inductive approach, using the SPRP pillars and SDH as the main themes, and identifying subthemes which emerged from the data within each of these main themes. See Table 2. In describing the subthemes we provide examples of studies which illustrate the subthemes. These referenced studies do not necessarily provide evidence of effect nor are they representative of the entire COVID-19 response in particular countries or regions mentioned.
Coordination, planning, financing and monitoring.
The 32 studies in this SPRP pillar dealing with overarching governance issues, described coordination, planning, financing and monitoring at various levels from communities, to local, state, national and international levels. The main subthemes which emerged were:- i) Inclusion of rural and remote areas in policies; ii) Coordination between national policies and rural responses; iii) Operational readiness in rural areas, iv) Factors which enhanced local coordination of preparedness and response; and v) Financing.
Inclusion of rural and remote areas in policies. The review identified few policies and guidelines which specifically included an approach to rural or remote areas, or provided information on COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural populations. At the level of regional guidance to support national COVID-19 responses, the PAHO guidance on strengthening the first level of care had an explicit embedded focus on rural and remote areas to promote targeted planning at that level [15]. In HICs, the USA National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan of 2022, [16] was an example of a policy which provided detailed guidance for rural and remote areas, and identified rural challenges. In some LMIC countries with large rural populations, national policies identified through the review appeared not to differentiate between rural and urban areas [17, 18]. Examples of challenges were described in reviews of India’s national policies in which authors identified overall health policy and system inadequacies that could hinder an effective COVID-19 response, but also highlighted the capacity for successful responses in states with large rural populations such as Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan [19, 20].
Coordination between national policies and rural responses. A few studies reported tensions between national policy and local responses where authors reported that top down, hierarchical national responses did not provide adequate space for local innovation and adaption [21, 22]. In some settings this was resolved to create a balance between top down and bottom-up responses, but in others, a rigid national approach and extreme border controls impacted negatively on rural and remote communities. Local autonomy was also impeded by structural factors such as workforce turnover, limited funding, medicolegal concerns, and a lack of access to information.
Operational readiness in rural areas. In the USA, operational readiness assessments at various levels found that rural areas had fewer health professionals, hospitals and intensive care units (ICU), despite having more vulnerable populations and reporting more deaths per population than urban areas [23–25]. Rural health services including Emergency Medical Services (EMS), community pharmacists and home health agencies were less prepared, and facilities were predicted to reach maximum capacity faster than in urban areas [26, 27].
Factors which enhanced local coordination of preparedness and response. Despite the tensions and local constraints, studies suggested that a balance between top down and bottom up responses can be achieved by building on well-established social structures, and a strong sense of social solidarity [21, 28]. Good relationships between government services and local leaders were critical in influencing attitudes and behaviours of rural populations [21, 28]. Planning and implementation by local multisectoral committees also ensured appropriateness of strategies, and collaborative leadership enhanced collective action in community governance and effective responses [29].
Rural COVID-19 responses relied heavily on local level institutions whose effectiveness and efficiency depended on the nature of those institutions, and their capacity, legitimacy and a history of policy interventions [30]. Important organisational attributes that enabled appropriate COVID-19 responses included strong leadership, effective communication, and multi-disciplinary collaboration, as well as operational elements such as a well-functioning incident command system with clear roles and responsibilities, and regular communication with health service employees. Good responses were based on well-defined and well implemented plans, included expanding intensive care capacity; provision of COVID-19 information, screening, testing and follow up services for geographically dispersed populations; coordination across large diverse organisations; and the integration of community-based responses. A strong degree of trust and collaboration between local government and communities facilitated more appropriate responses to the pandemic [30].
Studies in indigenous communities found that structural conditions limited local adaptive capacity to COVID-19, with high dependence of communities on public transfer payments as illustrated in a study on Torres Strait Islanders [31]. Lessons learnt were to ensure the participation of indigenous peoples as partners in decision-making regarding the planning, development, and implementation of programmes and in the development of preventive measures against COVID-19 [31].
Financing. Of the limited studies addressing health financing, and within that, financial protection, an important finding of a study in China was that health insurance did not adequately cover the costs of COVID-19 hospital care for rural households, who were at risk of catastrophic expenditures [32]. Health services in rural areas in USA were also affected financially through loss of revenue [16, 27].
Risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management.
Twenty-two publications described a range of communication platforms including traditional media such TV, radio, print media, leaflets, loudhailers; digital media such as SMSs, webinars, social media, and videos; interpersonal communication; or a mix of different approaches and platforms. Subthemes included i) Access to risk communication; ii) Differing needs and contexts for risk communication; iii) Roles of local leaders and organisations; and iv) Effects of risk communication.
Access to risk communication. Rural and remote communities received less risk communication, received it later, and received it in forms that were less appropriate to their context, needs and capacity to access and apply the information, as illustrated in studies from China and Australia [33, 34].
Differing needs and contexts for risk communication. The articles suggested that risk communication needs and contexts differ across target groups in HIC and LMIC countries, and that an understanding of the extent of rurality or remoteness, poverty and education levels, and experiences of social exclusion is required to appropriately inform interventions. Within rural areas, there were subpopulations who had different cultural and linguistic realities and for whom messaging required specific adaptations [35]. A study from Nigeria reported that rural communities had less access to digital media resources and relied more on traditional communication tools such as radio, TV, outreach visits and interpersonal communication [36].
Roles of local leaders and organisations. Several studies suggested that the role of local leaders, organisations and health services was key to engaging rural communities but was neglected in national ‘campaigns’, reducing the trust in risk communication [34, 37, 38]. In rural USA local Community Health Worker (CHW) organisations used advocacy to bring the issues of diverse communities to the forefront during planning on how to address the pandemic [39].
Effects of risk communication. Select studies reported that risk communication improved awareness, knowledge and some attitudes. [40, 41], and that the use of multiple platforms and channels of communication worked better than single platforms [42–44]. The impact on behavior was moderated by belief systems, cultural and social norms, politics, and the constraints of poverty, living conditions, and limited access to health care in several rural and remote communities [45–47].
Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures.
With 60 publications providing evidence on this theme, the analysis is presented along three sub-themes: i) COVID-19 surveillance systems, outbreak investigation and control measures, including contact tracing, quarantine, isolation and lockdowns; ii) Prevention strategies particularly Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) such as mask wearing, social distancing and handwashing, and iii) Social interventions, or assessed methods of assessing risk and protecting particular risk groups.
Religious festivals, movement of migrant workers, returning younger people from urban areas, and tourism were identified as factors in the spread of COVID-19 to rural areas [20, 48–50]. Whilst in some cases less severe disease was reported in rural patients, in others excess death measured as Infection fatality ratio (IFR) was higher in rural communities and lower in urban communities [51, 52]. The risk of hospitalisation was higher in rural areas of certain HICs, but hospitalisation rates were lower in rural areas in some LMICs [52–54].
COVID-19 surveillance systems, outbreak investigation and control measures, including contact tracing, quarantine, isolation and lockdowns. To contribute to meeting the need for reliable data on COVID-19 prevalence, electronic surveillance platforms were established, drawing on existing laboratory and patient data systems as seen in the case of Scotland, United Kingdom [55]. Community based surveillance studies were conducted in HIC and LMIC rural settings to improve estimates of COVID-19 seroprevalence [56, 57]. Two studies of community surveillance in rural areas of LMICs using rapid tests found a much higher prevalence of COVID-19 infection than reported through routine laboratory-based surveillance [52, 58]. CHWs assisted with surveillance, screening and detection of potential cases in the community or in returnees to villages and referring them for testing. They also assisted in identifying high risk individuals in the community, in contact tracing, supporting quarantine measures, and educating the community about NPI [54, 59–61].
Outbreak control in indigenous nations in the USA demonstrated the importance of cross-trained personnel who integrated tasks along the testing–tracing continuum, enabling the rapid identification of new cases and contacts. They also demonstrated collaborative efforts of Tribal government, federal partners and community members to respond to the pandemic by implementing surveillance, response coordination and communication systems [62].
Outbreak investigations in high-risk food processing occupational settings in rural USA found that screening, testing and quarantine measures of incoming workers was inadequate, and clusters of outbreaks occurred before control measures could be implemented [63, 64]. Outbreak investigations in rural health and tourism settings faced unique challenges, as reported by studies in the US and Australia, with long delays in obtaining test results limiting case identification and contact tracing efforts, and placing strain on the limited staff resources, resulting in the closure of health facilities [65–68].
A systematic review (47 studies across all settings) of contact tracing for communicable diseases, including COVID-19 studies and rural areas, found that contact tracing was an effective public health tool across a range of diseases, settings and approaches [69]. Data modelling of contact tracing and quarantine found that increasing the fraction of traced contacts decreased the size of the epidemic, and that quarantining all the traced contacts was more effective than quarantining only test positive traced contacts [70, 71]. Although contact tracing apps held promise, lower adoption rates reported in rural USA limited their utility [72].
Diligent contact tracing, strict isolation of cases and quarantining of all contacts, as well as shielding of vulnerable populations such as older people, reduced community transmission in rural areas of the UK and China, and were more acceptable than the blanket lockdowns implemented in urban areas [73, 74]. Although ‘shielding of older people’ was a challenging concept in rural communities in Sudan, it was acceptable if applied within the household rather than separating older family members geographically [75]. Studies from Sierra Leone and China showed that the negative psychological effects of lockdowns impacted older rural residents more than younger people in these areas, particularly those who were dependent on adult children working in urban areas for social and financial support as well as females in rural areas [76, 77].
Prevention strategies particularly Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) such as mask wearing, social distancing and handwashing. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as physical distancing and mask wearing, were effective in reducing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in a trial in rural Bangladesh and a mathematical modelling study in Ethiopia [78, 79]. In-person reinforcement by ’mask promoters’ was important to adopting NPI’s in the Bangladesh trial [78]. Modelling studies found that NPIs were more effective than strict national lockdowns or other strategies in both rural and urban areas [80, 81]. However, several studies reported that rural residents tended to apply NPI preventive measures less than urban residents which was attributed to lower education levels, poorer access to COVID-19 information, different perceptions and cultural norms, the inability to ‘work from home’ on farms and in rural areas, and the need in remote communities to obtain supplies [52, 61, 82, 83]. In contrast, a study in Brazil found that urban residents practised less social distancing than rural residents [84]. In Iran, public health officials, CHWs, agricultural extension workers, agricultural cooperatives and unions were reported to play an important role in rural settings in advising households on COVID-19 prevention and control, in setting up community-based networks and building local capacity [85].
Social interventions, or assessed methods of assessing risk and protecting particular risk groups. Social interventions were also shown to be important in reducing the negative side-effects of prevention and control measures in rural areas. For example, in South Africa, one study described how government-supported social welfare programmes aimed to buffer interruptions in income and healthcare access during local outbreaks [86]. Ensuring access to food supplies (e.g., WhatsApp groups with local grocers, free food for poorer households) and financial incentives were reported to enhance compliance with lockdown measures in Chinese villages [87]. Community initiatives included women in rural and urban communities with social and financial capital offering loans to other women, who needed assistance to feed their families. One study also indicated that community cohesion was positively associated with better mental health under lockdown [77].
Increased risks of violence against women and children have been documented as a negative side effect of prevention and control measures. A Canadian study documented the effects of COVID-19 on Inter-Personal Violence (IPV) in remote and rural communities, including indigenous communities. Reduced access to local care and limited access to appropriate telehealth services resulted in women who were seeking care being sent away from their communities [88].
Laboratories and diagnostics.
Sixteen publications described subthemes of i) Access to laboratory testing, ii) Types of tests and samples, and iii) Radiology in COVID-19 screening, testing and care.
Access to laboratory testing. Rural communities were reported to have less access to testing than urban communities [89, 90]. Barriers to testing included uncertainty regarding testing guidelines, where to go for tests, accessible testing locations, perceptions that testing was painful, and long waiting times for results [91]. Response strategies included expanding testing to non-traditional medical and non-medical sites, mobile testing and integrating eHealth technology for testing. In Lebanon, for example, portable primary health clinics provided COVID-19 testing, and linked the patients via telemedicine to doctors as required [92]. In Canada, rural, remote, urban and First Nations communities reported a high level of acceptability and satisfaction with a Virtual Triage and Assessment Centre established to increase access to testing and care [93].
Types of tests and samples. The availability of rapid molecular tests and the implementation of rapid point of care testing dramatically decreased the turn-around time for results in rural communities as illustrated in studies in the USA [94, 95]. Innovations in specimen collection media promised to improve the feasibility of molecular testing in remote or rural communities by reducing constraints experienced in the transporting of specimens [96].
One study from India suggested that pooled sample RT PCR testing was a reliable, effective approach for large scale screening of samples in low prevalence rural communities [97]. Studies from Brazil and Canada explored the use of rapid tests of waste water or raw sewage as early detection methods for COVID-19 in rural communities with a low prevalence of SARS CoV-2 [98, 99].
Radiology in COVID-19 screening, testing and care. A repository of radiological images from rural COVID-19 patients in the USA provided information on typical radiographic changes to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and clinical decision making [100].
Infection prevention and control, and protection of the health workforce.
Sixteen publications described i) Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), ii) Attitudes and practices in IPC, and iii) Protection of health workers.
Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). A review of COVID-19 WASH measures across 84 countries found wide variations, with basic hygiene promotion and IPC widely adopted, but support to promote basic access to WASH services at scale was weak, particularly for vulnerable households in rural areas and small towns [101]. In Ethiopia, a study reported deficiencies in the provision of WASH in 35 temporary COVID-19 isolation and treatment centres, particularly in rural areas, with daily water supply interruptions common, few functional laundries, insufficient hand washing stations, and a general shortage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) [102].
Attitudes and practices in IPC. In several countries, rural IPC and other health workers reported major challenges including a lack of access to PPE, overwhelming workloads and multiple responsibilities, which impeded the implementation of IPC measures and contributed to fear of infection for themselves and their patients [103–107].
IPC strategies in some rural areas in the USA included separate temporary quarantine facilities for COVID-19 screening of patients seeking entry into a residential addiction treatment program to prevent outbreaks in the centre; and temporary structures in rural areas for large-scale decontamination and re-use of PPE for hospitals and clinics to mitigate the risk of PPE procurement issues [108].
A hospital infectious diseases unit in rural Uganda was rapidly organised with multidisciplinary teams and access to speciality care to admit COVID-19 patients. However, as numbers of COVID-19 patients increased, patients had to be admitted to other wards, and COVID-19 care had to be integrated with cross-trained staff requiring capacitation in IPC [109].
An analysis of the first nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 within a healthcare environment in Australia found that rural healthcare environments and staff were ill-equipped for the pandemic. It also suggested that health professional presenteeism, with employees continuing to work while awaiting COVID-19 test results because of staff shortages, contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak and affected health service provisions [66].
Protection of health workers. A review of Workman’s Compensation in the USA found that although paid sick leave reduced new COVID‐19 cases and COVID‐19 activity in health workers and other essential workers, rural agricultural and food processing workers had inadequate sick leave protection contributing to housing and food insecurity [110].
Case management, clinical operations, and therapeutics.
Thirty publications described i) Rural hospital and primary care services for COVID-19, ii) Preparation and practices of rural health workers, and iii) Delivery of particular therapeutic agents in these settings.
Rural hospital and primary care services for COVID-19. Rural hospitals, in many cases led by generalists, provided essential health care for mild and moderate cases of COVID-19, taking pressure off higher-level facilities [111–114]. They faced challenges in operating at the margins at a time when communication channels were disrupted, and support from higher levels was variable, often with limited understanding of the rural hospital context [112]. An Australian study found that approaches which worked in urban areas such as designated COVID-19 hospitals, were less appropriate in rural areas where distance and travel were constraints [115]. Local hospital leadership in South Africa, New Zealand and the USA facilitated effective local responses, and models were developed such as a ‘hub-and-spoke system’ in which sicker patients were routed to a central rural or urban hospital [111, 112, 114]. Specific aspects of rural hospital preparedness included strengthening IPC, scaling down existing services such as elective surgery, workforce management, rapid expansion of telehealth, increased use of telecommunication with daily system wide briefings, the importance of training and exercises, feedback systems, and surge planning. Despite the responses at rural hospitals, equity concerns persisted about access to hospital care, particularly advanced care in rural areas [112, 114].
Primary care responses to COVID-19 varied, with rural Community Health Centres (CHCs) in the USA providing significantly fewer COVID-19-related care visits than urban CHCs, raising concerns about access to care [116]. A South African study also identified concerns about access to primary care for COVID-19 patients in rural areas [114]. Rural primary care physicians in Germany re-organised their practices to screen and triage patients, as well as managing patients remotely by telephone or video. They also observed a higher probability for more severe disease in COVID-19 patients in rural areas [117, 118]. In China, one study reported that primary care practitioners took on key public health roles of tracing, screening, and educating in rural areas [119]. According to the study, their role in treating patients was reduced as they did not transition to remote consultations and many patients were diverted to specialist COVID-19 clinics [119]. In Egypt tele-pharmacy teams, collaborating with prescribers in rural areas, were found to improve access to safe therapeutics, health education, ongoing monitoring and early detection of adverse events or deterioration in COVID-19 patients [120].
Multiple studies highlighted the role of community health workers (CHWs). Nurse-led Family Health Units in Brazil adopted strategies for prevention, health promotion, dealing with suspected COVID-19 cases and maintaining attendance of priority programs, while community health agents visiting homes played an important role in the response [121]. In the USA, CHWs also filled gaps in the provision of care to rural communities, using innovative ways to reach their clients, including video meetings, phone calls, and face-to-face meetings adhering to social distancing guidelines [39]. In India, the participation of CHWs helped ease the strain on frontline medical workers, augmented the capacity of the public health-care infrastructure and brought services closer to the community [122]. One study also raised the importance of adequately capacitating CHWs for the task, as otherwise their engagement could be counterproductive: the study suggested that some CHWs in Nigeria had a poor level of knowledge and practice of measures for controlling the spread of COVID-19 infection and were at high risk of contracting and spreading the infection to their contacts [123].
Technical teams and military services were also deployed to provide additional expertise and capacity to support rural communities in the USA [124, 125]. They assisted with the establishment of testing sites, the investigation of transmission in high-risk congregate settings, such as long-term care facilities, food processing facilities, correctional facilities, and services to persons experiencing homelessness. They also assisted with developing data collection instruments, conducting training on COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing, and providing support to improve public health information technology systems [124, 125].
Preparation and practices of rural health workers. Several studies indicated that rural general practitioners and nurses across countries reported a lack of preparedness, a lack of resources including staff, limited information, guidance and training, and inadequate supplies of PPE, oxygen, water and other essential items [103–106, 113]. This contributed to fear, anxiety, psychological distress, depression, stigma, discrimination, and feeling overwhelmed. However, they also experienced collaboration, teamwork, innovation, and improvisation, recognised the importance of selfcare and the support of colleagues, built relationships with communities and improved trust [103–106, 113].
Compliance with the COVID-19 response measures and management protocols varied across contexts, with a study from Greece reporting that rural PHC workers fared well compared to urban health workers [126]. Conversely, a study from India suggested that rural providers in some locations had poor compliance with recommended COVID-19 case management practices [127].
Multiple studies described innovative training programmes to prepare rural health professionals and community workers to respond to COVID-19, largely through short courses using digital technology. Important features of the courses were rapid availability, flexibility, accessibility through online platforms, and linguistic and cultural appropriateness. Courses emphasised their evidence base, the involvement of experts, the use of simulation, the creation of social networks, peer to peer coaching and communities of practice to support active learning [122, 128–131].
Other rural innovations included expanded access to testing and care such as the erection of screening tents for testing; rapid adoption of telehealth services for COVID-19 information, screening and care; integrated web-based information systems to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic; and the creation of rapid decision making and communication structures and systems supported by digital technology in some settings [132–135]. However, rural communities in comparison to urban communities also made less use of digital COVID-19 services as illustrated in a USA study [136].
Delivery of particular therapeutic agents in these settings. The only identified rural studies of therapeutic agents were of the delivery of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and of Monoclonal Antibodies at rural facilities in the USA [137, 138]. A study from Vietnam documented the extensive use of Herbal Medicine for COVID-19 [139].
Maintaining essential health services and systems.
The 63 studies on strategies for MEHSS focused mainly on i) Telemedicine/telehealth interventions (53; 88.3%), with relatively few on ii) maintaining or improving access to medicines, mental health care services, and mobile EMS services during the pandemic.
Telemedicine/telehealth interventions. The rapid increase in the use of telemedicine early in the pandemic largely compensated for the decreased in-person encounters in health care in some contexts, as evidenced in studies from the USA, Australia and Germany [140–142]. Although rural areas benefited from telemedicine, USA studies found that uptake was lower than in urban areas with many barriers and challenges including infrastructure, logistics, and internet connectivity [140, 143, 144]. Telemedicine supported a range of conditions and services including mental health, chronic diseases and care of older people, and increased access to prevention, health promotion, primary care, medical and surgical care, rehabilitation and palliative care. Settings for telehealth included patients homes, primary care services, hospitals, community based organisations, long term care facilities and prisons in rural areas.
In the USA, policy amendments reduced restrictions on telemedicine consultations and prescribing by primary practitioners, and providers rapidly improved their infrastructure and capacity to offer telehealth [145]. A local study in the USA reported that factors contributing to successful scaling up of telehealth included dedicated clinical staff, physician engagement, support of leadership, technical training opportunities, change management support, and adequate digital infrastructure and systems [146].
In addition to consultations with health care practitioners via video or telephone calls, rural telemedicine support included rapid pre-operative diagnoses and sorting of patients for surgery, [147, 148] robotic ultrasound scanning during antenatal care for pregnant women in remote areas, [149] a Tele-ICU service from specialist referral services to health facilities in rural India, [150] and remote device kiosks for screening for chronic diseases in pharmacies [151].
Studies suggested that many patients preferred audio-visual components of telehealth, versus telephone or audio only. However, some indigenous communities and older rural patients preferred face to face or telephonic options due to a lack of familiarity with digital technology, and limited access to infrastructure and equipment to support telehealth [152–155].
Studies from Australia and the USA indicated that patients and practitioners were largely satisfied with telehealth, and users reported improved physical and mental quality of life [156–159]. Higher socioeconomic status and education levels were associated with increased use of telemedicine in rural areas [155, 159–162]. Patients with more chronic conditions, needing more than one visit per annum, and travelling longer distances were more likely to use telehealth services [159, 161].
Telehealth benefits for clients included ease of scheduling and reduced wait time for appointments, quicker responses to emergencies, decreased travel time and costs, patient safety during the pandemic, compatibility with work commitments and child care arrangements, improved parental involvement and responsiveness, faster access to laboratory investigations and results, and improved continuity of care [142, 163, 164].
Benefits to health services included reduced travel time for staff, improved staff efficiency and cost savings, improved multidisciplinary teamwork, retention of services in rural communities, including retention of revenues and ongoing employment opportunities for local communities [156, 162]. Telehealth platforms also facilitated the collection of geographical and sociodemographic data on users to inform health service responses for vulnerable groups [134].
Telehealth increased opportunities for more comprehensive care including risk assessments, home based screening, behaviour change counselling, psychosocial support and pharmacy support for rural individuals and families. Two studies from Germany and the USA indicated that self-care practices using telehealth options also increased [142, 165]. Some studies reported that community and faith based organisations also adopted telehealth options including live streaming and radio to provide psycho-social support and services during COVID-19 [142, 165, 166].
A review across five LMICs found indications of readiness for mobile consulting in communities with minimal resources, but also found substantial infrastructure challenges and advised that wider system strengthening was needed to optimise the benefits of telehealth [167]. A systematic review of virtual health services in South Africa during COVID-19 found that a wide range of innovative digital health technology services had been utilised. However, these faced multiple barriers from infrastructural and technological, organization and financial, policy and regulatory barriers as well as cultural barriers, which impacted rural more than urban areas [168].
Maintaining or improving access to medicines, mental health care services, and mobile EMS services. Among the non-telehealth MEHSS studies, risk modelling of the functioning of the Brazilian Mobile EMS for remote riverside and coastal areas identified critical elements, including the role of CHWs in emergencies, which enabled them to re-organise the service to better respond during the COVID-19 pandemic [169]. Medicine deliveries were facilitated by policy changes to allow ‘take home’ medication for longer periods for stable patients with a wider range of diagnoses; home deliveries of medication; community based ‘pick up’ points for refills; and the use of geospatial information to plan medication distribution in rural areas, as illustrated in studies from the USA and Uganda [170, 171]. Community based mental health care services were expanded in Mexico to respond to needs during COVID-19 by building capacity to support communities and health professionals [172].
Vaccination.
The 18 publications on COVID-19 vaccination in rural areas reported on i) Vaccination coverage and effects, ii) Vaccine hesitancy, and iii) Strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake.
Vaccination coverage and effects. Vaccine coverage ranged between 40% and 60% between December 2020 and May 2021, but was significantly lower in rural than urban areas in the USA [173–176]. Vaccine uptake was lowest in farming and mining dependent rural counties, in rural areas with limited health infrastructure, lower education levels, in younger age groups, and in some minority ethnic groups in rural areas [173–176]. Rural residence was also associated with lower acceptance rates of COVID-19 vaccine in health care workers in studies in Lebanon, Jordan and the USA [177–179]. In contrast vaccination coverage in people older than 50 years in Wales was high (>90%) between December 2020 and April 2021, and rural residents were more likely to be vaccinated than those in urban areas [180]. A USA study reported high vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Veterans, which was similar in urban and rural areas [181].
In general, rural areas reported health care constraints that limited effective vaccination coverage, particularly shortages of appropriate health care professionals, and inadequate public health care infrastructure, including limited cold chain capacity for the transport and storage of vaccines. In LMICs these health system limitations were more extreme.
Vaccine hesitancy. Studies on vaccine hesitancy and communication about vaccines identified key concerns as the novelty of the vaccine, side effects or vaccine safety, the number of required doses, and reliability of the manufacturers [182–185]. Rural populations were also concerned about accessibility and availability of vaccines, particularly in LMICs [182–185]. Rural populations that obtained most of their information from the media (internet, TV, or combined sources), reportedly had more concerns about vaccines and greater vaccine hesitancy [184]. Select studies suggested that the provision of vaccine information and consultations with recommendations from health professionals and health authorities increased confidence that vaccines were safe, improved the likelihood of vaccine acceptance and increased vaccine coverage [177, 182, 185].
Strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake. Recommended strategies for enhancing vaccine acceptance and uptake in rural areas, included information and communication strategies, the integration of COVID-19 vaccination into routine medical care, and alternative delivery sites including home delivery of vaccinations for the elderly or disabled, workplace vaccination especially on farms and factories, and at schools in rural areas [186]. ‘Smart’ vaccination strategies in India and South Africa defined and tested criteria to inform planning and prioritisation of vaccination in the context of vaccine scarcity and health system constraints [187, 188]. The type of vaccine used in rural areas due to transport and storage (i.e., cold chain) requirements and access to health care facilities (for repeat doses versus single dose vaccines) were important considerations [187, 188].
Social determinants of health.
The 29 studies on SDH described i) the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic and control efforts negatively impacted livelihoods and food security, ii) the responses to mitigate the effects on food security and iii) the social and economic responses. A few studies also described iv) the role of digital technology in the response to food insecurity and other SDH.
COVID-19 pandemic and control efforts’ impact on livelihoods and food security. Studies from sub-Saharan Africa and Pakistan suggested that the pandemic and control responses contributed to acute deprivation for rural, marginalised communities with loss of wages and state-imposed barriers to accessing facilities and public provisions [189, 190]. Spatial and gendered disparities in economic opportunity meant rural areas and women and children were most affected by the economic contraction [191, 192]. Select studies from South Africa and China indicated that while all areas experienced dramatic job losses at the beginning of lockdown, urban areas started to recover earlier than rural areas where unemployment persisted for longer [191, 193]. Several studies reported that COVID-19 exacerbated existing urban-rural inequities.
The pandemic affected the food security pillars of availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability of food systems. Rural communities were disproportionately impacted, as illustrated with three different studies reporting that one third to more than two thirds experienced low or very low food security in select locations [190, 194, 195]. There was variation across regions, countries and within countries depending on a number of factors, including their connectivity locally and globally, existing food systems, and local and national support and relief for agriculture and food security during the pandemic. Studies suggested that the principal Asian and Pacific farming and food systems were moderately resilient to COVID-19, reinforced by government policies that prioritized food availability and affordability [196–198].
Rural livelihoods and food security were affected primarily because of disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains (i.e., seeds and fertilisers). Increased food prices, disruptions in food logistics, food scarcity in grocery stores, the inability to work due to movement restrictions and the subsequent loss of income, and less purchasing power contributed to the decline in food security [190, 195–197, 199].
The consequences were uneven within rural communities, with women, farmers, youth, and children suffering more. Women as small farmers and in seafood value chains were more vulnerable to the market shocks associated with COVID-19 in the Pacific [196, 198]. Low income families, larger households and those that remained in quarantine also experienced more food insecurity [190].
Responses to mitigate the effects on food security. A common positive indicator of recovery potential was the range of strategies taken by communities and governments to support rural livelihoods [196]. Rapid prioritisation and public policy responses to support agriculture and food security strategies included the use of public funds to incentivise agricultural activity, and a range of policy incentives to increase production and home gardening [195, 196]. In select locations in Pakistan and the USA, households who received income support or aid from government, such as state-supported food assistance, experienced less food insecurity than their counterparts during the pandemic [190, 195].
Other responses included expansion of community food resources such as food banks, canteens and distribution of food parcels, home food gardening and other projects to support food provisioning [195, 199, 200]. Communities sought to maintain sufficient levels of food through food sharing, increased local food production and previous stockpiling of produce such as rice [191, 198]. This commitment of local communities and volunteering associations, as well as an increasing interest in reconnecting with local food practices, became important, as evidenced in the study from Pakistan [190].
Small-scale farmers in Southern Africa and Indonesia relied mainly on social capital by using coping strategies developed within their immediate family, farming networks, or neighbourhoods [201]. Women farmers were better able to adapt than male farmers where women were traditionally the primary decision makers around food growing, purchase, preparation, and consumption [201]. Localized seed and input supply systems were crucial to enhancing agricultural production’s resilience to future pandemics. However, small-scale farmers in some regions had little transformative capacity and agency to enable them to support local communities’ food needs [201]. Studies from countries in different regions suggested that short food supply chains proved resilient and ameliorated the impact of the pandemic, with strong local connections providing support when global connections were disrupted [196–198].
Households in Pakistan adopted several coping strategies, such as rationing, dietary changes, eating less, and increased short-term food availability by borrowing food or buying food on credit [190]. Dietary changes across countries were characterised by increased consumption of vegetables and staples (maize, rice, and bread), while consumption of meat, fish, fruit, oil, and sugar decreased [197, 201]. Simple nutrition and gender messaging as part of behavioural change communication during COVID-19 improved dietary quality among women [202].
Social and economic responses. Several studies described social and economic support through cash transfers, emergency supplies, social prescribing, social solidarity through reciprocal practices, and technological innovations [191, 194, 203]. Different studies highlighted that the coverage of COVID-19 cash transfers appeared to benefit urban residents more than rural, with suboptimal coverage of qualifying recipients in several countries [191, 194, 203]. A study suggested that digital cash payments through the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) programs improved their coverage and efficiency in India [204].
Communities drew on traditional practices to strengthen community resilience during COVID-19. Osekkai, a traditional Japanese behaviour in the community, was utilized as a form of social prescribing in rural communities by creating a helping culture and social participation [205]. This was also demonstrated in the Tigani community in rural Romania where intense social cooperation, strong sense of family, community and mutual assistance helped them to fight COVID-19. It also strengthened adaptability to the societal changes and their power to keep intact their cultural identity [206]. Grassroots organizations in the Andes instituted a range of hybrid reciprocity practices as essential for provisioning during COVID-19. e.g. bartering and gift-giving [50, 207].
The role of digital technology. A few studies described the use of digital technology which contributed to increased levels of self-efficacy and emotional well-being in rural areas by providing access to learn new skills to generate an income or improve crops; increased accessibility to provide and seek help via social media, especially building on the tradition and practice of serving and helping others [193, 208–210]. E-agriculture and e-commerce enabled bartering in digital form such as WhatsApp to sell produce, for groups to communicate and share food, and for farmers to contact agricultural extension workers or to connect with urban markets. It was a means for social connectedness, to relate to people, talk to them, and ask for help when needed [208].
Discussion
More studies were included from HIC’s and focused on MEHSS, vaccination and clinical management, whereas studies from LMIC addressed SDH and risk communication and community engagement more. Key findings from the thematic analysis were that rural health systems were less prepared and equipped, and national COVID-19 responses were often not adequately tailored to rural areas. Promising COVID-19 responses involved local leaders and communities, were collaborative and multisectoral, and drew on local cultures. Non-pharmaceutical interventions were applied less, support for access to water and sanitation at scale was weak, and more targeted approaches to the isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts were preferable to blanket lockdowns. Rural pharmacists, community health workers and agricultural extension workers assisted in overcoming the shortages of other health professionals. Vaccination coverage was hindered by weaker health systems in rural areas. Digital technology enabled better coordination, communication, and access to health services, yet for some was inaccessible. Determinants of health, including rural livelihoods and food security, were affected through disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains.
An important output of the study was to identify the successes and enablers, challenges and barriers and research gaps to inform future policy, practice and research on HEPR in rural and remote areas.
Successes and enablers
Many examples of innovations or practices that facilitated COVID-19 preparation and responses in rural areas emerged. Rapid state policy responses to needs, particularly policy coordinated across sectors, expanded health care services by reducing restrictions on practitioners and services, allowed for greater use of health and digital technology, and provided support to protect rural food systems and cash transfers to vulnerable rural households.
Characteristics which contributed to successful rural COVID-19 HEPR included organisational dimensions, multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral collaborations and engagement with local leaders and communities. Responses that were contextually and culturally appropriate, and which respected and built on traditional practices and social capital, strengthened community responses and resilience.
Rural risk communication was enhanced by information from credible or trusted sources, including health professionals, health authorities, local leaders, CHW’s and credible experts; and by the use of multiple channels of communication, including interpersonal communication in rural settings.
Strict isolation of cases, contact tracing and quarantining of all contacts, and shielding of vulnerable groups, appeared preferable to blanket lockdowns in rural areas. Although NPIs were effective in rural settings, rural populations tended to apply NPI preventive measures less and needed more local support for NPI’s.
The re-organisation and reprioritisation of health facility services, and expansion beyond medical facilities to temporary, mobile and non-traditional sites assisted in broadening access to COVID-19 testing, care and vaccinations. Innovative online training programmes sought to prepare rural health workers, and capacity was expanded by involving and extending the roles of pharmacists, CHWs, and external technical teams. Models of multidisciplinary care emerged which were more comprehensive and sought to respond to the psychosocial needs of individuals and families.
The limited COVID-19 surveillance in rural areas was expanded by linking electronic laboratory and patient information systems where they existed and through community surveillance systems. Technology contributed extensively to rural HEPR, particularly through the use of rapid RNA tests, innovative decontamination services for PPE, and digital technology to support telehealth for COVID-19 care and the MEHSS, training, communication, coordination, social support, e-agriculture, and to support food systems and livelihoods in rural communities.
State support programs were supplemented by a wide range of community responses such as food pantries and food parcels, home and community gardens, sharing of produce, and financial assistance directly between households, as a buffer to food insecurity and extensive loss of income in many rural settings.
Challenges and barriers
Studies reported an urban bias in policy, financing and resourcing, both preceding and in response to the pandemic. National COVID-19 plans were often perceived as unsupportive of rural contexts and needs. Rural settings reported inadequate information, health infrastructure, human resources and supplies, which were more extreme in LMIC settings. Rural health workers frequently felt unprepared, unsupported and inadequately equipped to respond to COVID-19. Pre-existing concerns about equity of access to care in rural settings, both to primary care and for referrals for advanced hospital care, were magnified by the pandemic.
Rural areas appeared to receive less risk communication, and received it later and in forms that were less appropriate to the populations and context, reducing trust in the information. This limited the effects on behaviour change, which were moderated by local beliefs, norms and living conditions.
Barriers to telehealth existed at multiple levels (policy, organisational and individual), and included financial, regulatory, cultural and language challenges in LMIC and vulnerable rural communities in HIC. Telehealth in the COVID-19 HEPR thus inadvertently contributed to inequities in access to health care, with urban, better educated and higher socioeconomic groups benefiting most.
Insufficient planning and coordination across sectors to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and responses on livelihoods and food security was reported in many rural settings. Civil society organisations that provided food and social assistance often had limited resources or lacked flexibility in their funding to respond to the arising needs. The impact of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods was multi-faceted, with most being disadvantaged in multiple ways, including difficulties in sustaining pre-existing livelihoods, in benefitting from policy shifts and poverty relief initiatives, and in accessing healthcare. Some rural communities, however, were relatively protected, especially where good local food distribution/sharing networks were in place and/or where agricultural support programmes were specifically targeted to small-scale farmers. The impact was uneven with vulnerable groups in rural communities experiencing greater challenges.
Implications
This review has aimed to inform ongoing global and national processes and plans to ensure adequate preparedness and response to health emergencies. Among these processes and plans are the reviews of national capacities linked to the International Health Regulations, the National Action Plans for Health Security, One Health operations, National Disaster Risk Management Strategies, and, specific to COVID-19, national COVID-19 response and recovery plans [211–214].
The evidence on the importance of localization and decentralization of health emergency preparedness and response has been documented by independent reports, including the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), which highlighted that “countries with the poorest results in addressing COVID-19 had uncoordinated approaches […] They lacked the capacity to mobilize quickly and coordinate between national and subnational responses” [215]. Some of these lessons have already been incorporated into updated technical guidance for the implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005). The updated State Parties Annual Reporting Tool (SPAR) now incorporates indicators on gender equality, risk communication and community engagement among others [216]. The updated Joint External Evaluation and the upcoming Benchmarks for IHR Capacities guidance, are some of several tools and guidance which incorporate elements to facilitate the operationalization of approaches that support localization of interventions and strengthening of sub-national capacities- in line with the findings of this scoping review. Moreover, WHOs 10 proposals to build a safer world together also reflects the importance of looking at subnational capacities [217].
Important lessons from the review for HEPR policy and plans include the following:
- Pandemic preparedness, readiness and response plans need to be “rural proofed” to ensure that they adequately take into account the needs, varying contexts, and opportunities of rural areas;[218]
- Improved vertical coordination across national, regional, and local levels of government is key to better pandemic preparedness and response in rural areas, allowing for optimal adaption and tailoring for local rural contexts;
- Myth-breaking (“Covid-19 is an urban disease”) is required to galvanize adequate support and attention to pandemic preparedness, readiness and response in rural areas;
- Rural community and stakeholder engagement platforms helped enable locally appropriate solutions to evolve and barriers to access services to be overcome, and should be adequately resourced;
- Many of the bottlenecks encountered with COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural areas reflect pre-existing health systems deficiencies, made worse by COVID-19, and this reinforces the call for health systems strengthening in rural and remote areas;
- Cross-governmental action for enhanced integrated and transformation rural development is required to address the social determinants of health in rural areas that were exacerbated by COVID-19 and which hindered overarching preparedness and response;
- Policymakers and planners working on integrated rural development policy across sectoral domains have a role in supporting pandemic preparedness, readiness and response.
Limitations
This review sought to scope the literature on COVID-19 HEPR in rural and remote areas in all settings. However, we found relatively few studies on COVID-19 HEPR in LMICs and in particular rural or remote communities experiencing vulnerability in HIC settings, or studies conducted across different rural communities and/or countries. We also found very few studies on certain topics including WHO SPRP pillars of Points of entry, international travel and transport, and mass gatherings; Operational support and logistics, and supply chains, or on the financing of COVID-19 responses and financial impact on health systems, as well as on One Health. At the same time it is acknowledged that the search was completed after the first two years of the pandemic, thus additional articles of relevance released since April 2022 were not captured.
We included all study designs, but studies were largely descriptive or exploratory, with few formal evaluations or experimental studies of interventions. The findings are therefore broadly descriptive of the field and the review does not assess effectiveness of particular COVID-19 HPER’s in particular communities or settings.
The challenges in interpreting rural-urban disaggregated data must be flagged: lower reported excess death or lower reported hospitalization in rural areas do not necessarily equate with stronger health systems and less exposure to disease in these locations. They may in fact be linked to weaker reporting capacity and/or unmet need, so further reviews and consideration of these numbers must be made in the process of more thorough performance assessments.
Further research
This scoping review identified gaps in the literature which can guide further research. More research needs to be supported on COVID-19 HEPR in rural and remote settings in LMIC’s including more in-depth exploratory studies of particular rural communities or risk groups in to understand their needs and appropriate strategies. Further research is also warranted in communities living with vulnerability across HICs and LMICs, such as indigenous communities, migrant workers, refugees and isolated older adults, while also recognizing the need to evaluate operations across the full spectrum of rural and remote areas (including island and river communities, remote mountainous communities, etc) where service delivery modalities have needed to adapt to varying geography and infrastructure constraints. Studies across different communities to compare practises and interventions in different settings would also provide important lessons for the future HEPR.
Overall, more rigorous studies which are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of differentiated, decentralised approaches across diverse rural health systems are needed. Operations research underpinned by realist evaluation approaches, and participatory research methods where interventions are co-designed with communities were advocated to tailor responses to local needs and contexts.
Proposed study topics on innovative ways to improve access to COVID-19 care and MEHSS in rural areas during and post pandemic include the uptake and utilisation of telehealth, the role of a wider range of formal and informal health workers, alternative delivery sites and transportation modes. In addition, research should be undertaken on the well-being and resilience of healthcare workers, and measures needed to support them during crises.
Further research is also needed on the under-reporting of COVID-19 in rural communities, including morbidity and mortality in communities experiencing vulnerability and high-risk groups to inform the planning and monitoring of the COVID-19 pandemic and responses.
Studies on the impact of COVID-19 policy responses in rural communities should assess the longer term social and economic consequences of outbreak control measures in rural communities. These should assess alternative strategies to strengthen resilience and adaptive capabilities and explore more collaborative approaches across government levels and sectors which could reduce the negative consequences during and post pandemic.
Finally, it is important that an update of the global literature be done to cover the second biennium of COVID-19 response (2022–2024).
Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the HEPR capacities of countries across the world. The evidence presented in this review on the HEPR to COVID-19 in rural and remote areas, reveal important lessons which must be incorporated into ongoing discussions about global health security. The need for decentralized and localized HEPR planning cannot be contested; evidence points towards the grave negative implications of attempting to apply policies that worked in one place to another, contextually different setting. Risk communication messages can get lost in translation and not reach those who need it most—with detrimental consequences for efforts to contain infectious disease outbreaks. Similarly, digital-based responses, which may lead to positive outcomes in some settings or with particular groups of the population, may be ineffective in other settings where internet or mobile coverage is not as high, accessibility to digital platforms is lower, or preference for trusted communication sources lies elsewhere. The evidence also highlights the need for intersectoral action to address health needs and social determinants of health to ensure that equitable approaches to disease management and control are implemented.
More rigorous studies of HEPR in vulnerable rural and remote communities, particularly in LIC’s, is needed including on the social and economic consequences of outbreaks and responses. Effective HEPR approaches should also integrate intersectoral forms of analysis and design.
Lastly, it is essential for the global community to work towards the reduction of social inequities, including through the strengthening of rural health systems, in order to be better prepared to face future infectious disease outbreaks, including of pandemic potential. Only by doing so will we be better prepared to contain and respond to the next pandemic.
Acknowledgments
Guidance was sought from WHO Health Emergencies experts, including: Jilian Sacks, April Baller, and Melinda Frost. Vittoria Lutje of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, advised on the search strategy and conducted the electronic database searches. Innocentia Lediga, Mercia Companie and Kopano Dube, of the Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University assisted with the data capture. Special acknowledgment goes to Pramila Shrestha, WHO, for her contribution to the commissioning of and organizational support in the early phases of this work, and to Hortense Nesseler, WHO, for reviewing the article and her project management support in its finalization.
Disclaimer: This article represents solely the views of the authors and in no way should be interpreted to represent the views of, or endorsement by, the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization shall in no way be responsible for the accuracy, veracity and completeness of the information provided through this article.
References
- 1. Kroesbergen-Kamps J. Tackling inequalities in public service coverage to “build forward better” for the rural poor. Policy Brief by the HLCP Inequalities Task Team. 2021.
- 2. Franco CM, Lima JG, Giovanella L. Primary healthcare in rural areas: access, organization, and health workforce in an integrative literature review. Cad Saude Publica. 2021;7;37(7).
- 3. Strasser R, Kam SM, Regalado SM. Rural health care access and policy in developing countries. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:395–412. pmid:26735432
- 4. Ziller E, Milkowski C. A Century Later: Rural Public Health’s Enduring Challenges and Opportunities. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(11):1678–86. pmid:32941065
- 5. Brundisini F, Giacomini M, DeJean D, Vanstone M, Winsor S, Smith A. Chronic disease patients’ experiences with accessing health care in rural and remote areas: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(15):1–33. pmid:24228078
- 6. World Health Organization. Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies. Geneva; 2021.
- 7. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32.
- 8. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.ca
- 9. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct 1;18(10):2119–26. pmid:33038124
- 10. The World Bank. World-Bank-Country-List-2022. https://data.worldbank.org/country. 2022.
- 11. Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Covidence systematic review platform. Available at www.covidence.org.
- 12. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.2020. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/en-za/microsoft-365/excel.
- 13.
Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. Seaman J, editor. Sage; 2014.
- 14. McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, et al. Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension. Vol. 123, J Clin Epidemiol. Elsevier USA; 2020. p. 177–9. pmid:32229248
- 15. PAHO. Considerations for Strengthening the First Level of Care in the Management of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021.
- 16. The White House. National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. Washington; 2022.
- 17. Department of Disaster Management Affairs, National COVID-19 Office, Ministry of Health. National COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Strategy and Plan. The Republic of Malawi; 2021.
- 18. National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by a Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Guidelines for case-finding, diagnosis, management and public health response in South Africa. Vol. 2019. Pretoria; 2020 Mar.
- 19. Pandey A, Saxena NK. Effectiveness of Government Policies in Controlling COVID-19 in India. International Journal of Health Services [Internet]. 2022;52(1 PG-30–37):30–7. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc=true&db=cin20&AN=153559284&site=ehost-live NS- pmid:33375883
- 20. Gauttam P, Patel N, Singh B, Kaur J, Chattu VK, Jakovljevic M. Public Health Policy of India and COVID-19: Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Combating Response. Sustainability. 2021;13(6 PG-18):18.
- 21. Song Y, Liu TY, Wang XY, Guan TR. Fragmented restrictions, fractured resonances: grassroots responses to Covid-19 in China. Crit Asian Stud. 2020;52(4 PG-494–511):494–511.
- 22. Fosse A, Svensson A, Konradsen I, Abelsen B. Tension between local, regional and national levels in Norway’s handling of COVID-19. Scand J Public Health. (PG-8):8.
- 23. Peters DJ. Community Susceptibility and Resiliency to COVID-19 Across the Rural-Urban Continuum in the United States. J Rural Health [Internet]. 2020;36(3 PG-446–456):446–56. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med17&NEWS=N&AN=32543751 NS - pmid:32543751
- 24. Kim K, Ghorbanzadeh M, Horner MW, Ozguven EE. Identifying areas of potential critical healthcare shortages: A case study of spatial accessibility to ICU beds during the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida. Transp Policy (Oxf) [Internet]. 2021;110(PG-478-486):478–86. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34257481 NS - pmid:34257481
- 25. Berland H, Hughes D. Is Rural Kansas Prepared? An Assessment of Resources Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Kans J Med [Internet]. 2021;14(PG-95-102):95–102. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=33903809 NS - pmid:33903809
- 26. Carpenter DM, Hastings T, Westrick S, Rosenthal M, Mashburn P, Kiser S, et al. Rural community pharmacies’ preparedness for and responses to COVID-19. Res Social Adm Pharm [Internet]. 2021;17(7 PG-1327–1331):1327–31. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34155979 NS - pmid:34155979
- 27. Shang J, Chastain AM, Perera UGE, Quigley DD, Fu CJ, Dick AW, et al. COVID-19 Preparedness in US Home Health Care Agencies. J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet]. 2020;21(7 PG-924–927):924–7. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=32674820 NS - pmid:32674820
- 28. Haim D, Ravanilla N, Sexton R. Sustained Government Engagement Improves Subsequent Pandemic Risk Reporting In Conflict Zones. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2021;115(2 PG-717–724):717–24.
- 29. Shu Q, Wang Y. Collaborative Leadership, Collective Action, and Community Governance against Public Health Crises under Uncertainty: A Case Study of the Quanjingwan Community in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(2 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33445697 NS - pmid:33445697
- 30. Dutta A, Fischer HW. The local governance of COVID-19: Disease prevention and social security in rural India. World Dev [Internet]. 2021;138(PG-105234):105234. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=33106724 NS - pmid:33106724
- 31. Flores-Ramírez R, Berumen-Rodríguez AA, Martínez-Castillo MA, Alcántara-Quintana LE, Díaz-Barriga F, Díaz de León-Martínez L. A review of Environmental risks and vulnerability factors of indigenous populations from Latin America and the Caribbean in the face of the COVID-19. Glob Public Health [Internet]. 2021;16(7 PG-975–999):975–99. Available from: NS - pmid:33966608
- 32. Li XZ, Jin F, Zhang JG, Deng YF, Shu W, Qin JM, et al. Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in Shandong, China: A cost and affordability analysis. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Jun 29;9(1). pmid:32600426
- 33. Zhou W, He LS, Nie XH, Wuri T, Piao JH, Chen DS, et al. Accuracy and Timeliness of Knowledge Dissemination on COVID-19 Among People in Rural and Remote Regions of China at the Early Stage of Outbreak. Front Public Health. 2022;9(PG-10):10. pmid:35087779
- 34. Healey SJR, Ghafournia N, Massey PD, Andrich K, Harrison J, Taylor K, et al. Ezidi voices: The communication of COVID-19 information amongst a refugee community in rural Australia- a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health [Internet]. 2022;21(1 PG-10):10. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35062947 NS - pmid:35062947
- 35. UNHR. COVID-19 and indigenous peoples rights. What is the impact of COVID-19 on indigenous peoples rights? [Internet]. Ontario; 2021. Available from: NS -
- 36. Ezeah G, Ogechi EO, Ohia NC, Celestine GV. Measuring the effect of interpersonal communication on awareness and knowledge of COVID-19 among rural communities in Eastern Nigeria. Health Educ Res [Internet]. 2020;35(5 PG-481–489):481–9. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33090218 NS - pmid:33090218
- 37. Kohler I V, Kampfen F, Ciancio A, Mwera J, Mwapasa V, Kohler HP. Curtailing Covid-19 on a dollar-a-day in Malawi: Role of community leadership for shaping public health and economic responses to the pandemic. World Dev [Internet]. 2022;151(PG-105753):105753. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm&NEWS=N&AN=34848913 NS - pmid:34848913
- 38. Lian XJ, Zhang WG, Jia YF, Zhu YD. Fighting Covid-19 in rural communities: coordinated mobilization and reconstruction of community order in a village in Northern China. J Asian Public Policy. (PG-21):21.
- 39. Logan RI, Castaneda H. Addressing Health Disparities in the Rural United States: Advocacy as Caregiving among Community Health Workers and Promotores de Salud. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2020;17(24 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33321718 NS - pmid:33321718
- 40. Mathad V, Shetty A. Impact of COVID 19 webinar on knowledge, attitude and practices among Indian population- A community based study. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health [Internet]. 2022;13(PG-100919):100919. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm&NEWS=N&AN=34904131 NS - pmid:34904131
- 41. Srivastav AK, Sharma N, Goyal M, Samuel AJ. Níveis de conscientização da comunidade rural, desafios e estratégias adotadas para combater o COVID-19: uma e-survey transversal. Rev Pesqui Fisioter [Internet]. 2020;10(4 PG-699–707):699–707. Available from: https://www5.bahiana.edu.br/index.php/fisioterapia/article/view/3278/3654https://www5.bahiana.edu.br/index.php/fisioterapia/article/view/3278/3655 NS -
- 42. Carvalho LM, Nascimento FAA, Granato RR, Damasceno OC, Teixeira FB, Sato DA. e-COVID Xingu: Mídias Sociais e Informação no Combate à Covid-19 em Altamira, Pará. Rev bras educ méd [Internet]. 2020;44(supl.1 PG-e142-e142):e142–e142. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-55022020000500407 NS -
- 43. Kim E, Shepherd ME, Clinton JD. The effect of big-city news on rural America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. 2020;117(36 PG-22009–22014):22009–14. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=32820075 NS - pmid:32820075
- 44. Bahety G, Bauhoff S, Patel D, Potter J. Texts don’t nudge: An adaptive trial to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in India. J Dev Econ. 2021;153(PG-9):9. pmid:34602705
- 45. Nyarko J, Serwornoo MYW, Azanu B. Communication lapses to combating COVID-19 pandemic: Evaluating Ghana’s COVID-19 campaign. J Afr Media Stud. 2021;13(2 PG-159–175):159–75.
- 46. Rahman FN, Bhuiyan MA, Hossen K, Khan HTA, Rahman A, Dalal K. Challenges in Preventive Practices and Risk Communication towards COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bangladesh. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17 PG-12):12. pmid:34501847
- 47. Norman D, Miller J, Timothy M, Friday G, Norman L, Friday G, et al. From Sorcery to Laboratory: Pandemics and Yanyuwa Experiences of Viral Vulnerability. Oceania [Internet]. 2021;91(1 PG-64–85):64–85. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34230693 NS - pmid:34230693
- 48. Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(13):1199–207. pmid:31995857
- 49. Wang H, Zhang M, Li R, Zhong O, Johnstone H, Zhou H, et al. Tracking the effects of COVID-19 in rural China over time. Int J Equity Health [Internet]. 2021;20(1 PG-35):35. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33446205 NS - pmid:33446205
- 50. Gabriel-Campos E, Werner-Masters K, Cordova-Buiza F, Paucar-Caceres A. Community eco-tourism in rural Peru: Resilience and adaptive capacities to the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2021;48(PG-416-427):416–27.
- 51. Ren H, Guo X, Palazon-Bru A, Yang P, Huo N, Wang R, et al. Regional Differences in Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics, Treatment, and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 in Wuhan and Remote Areas of Hubei Province. Front Med (Lausanne) [Internet]. 2021;8(PG-667623):667623. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34336881 NS - pmid:34336881
- 52. Kleynhans J, Tempia S, Wolter N, von Gottberg A, Bhiman JN, Buys A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in a Rural and Urban Household Cohort during First and Second Waves of Infections, South Africa, July 2020-March 2021. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2021;27(12 PG-3020–3029):3020–9. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=153718926&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34477548
- 53. Boudou M, OhAiseadha C, Garvey P, O’Dwyer J, Hynds P. Modelling COVID-19 severity in the Republic of Ireland using patient co-morbidities, socioeconomic profile and geographic location, February to November 2020. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2021;11(1 PG-18474):18474. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34531478 NS - pmid:34531478
- 54. Gandhi PA, Rehman T, Ilanchoorian D, Kathirvel S. Community Preparedness and Practices for Prevention and Control of COVID-19 (COP-COVID): An Assessment from Rural Northern India. Dis Med Public Health Prep. (PG-6):6. pmid:34344491
- 55. Simpson CR, Robertson C, Vasileiou E, Moore E, McCowan C, Agrawal U, et al. Temporal trends and forecasting of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in Scotland using a national real-time patient-level data platform: a statistical modelling study. Lancet Digit Health [Internet]. 2021;3(8 PG-517–525):e517–25. Available from: NS - pmid:34238721
- 56. Runkle JD, Sugg MM, Graham G, Hodge B, March T, Mullendore J, et al. Participatory COVID-19 Surveillance Tool in Rural Appalachia: Real-Time Disease Monitoring and Regional Response. Public Health Reports [Internet]. 2021;136(3 PG-327–337):327–37. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150254039&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33601984
- 57. Appa A, Takahashi S, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Chamie G, Sawyer A, Duarte E, et al. Universal Polymerase Chain Reaction and Antibody Testing Demonstrate Little to No Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in a Rural Community. Open Forum Infect Dis [Internet]. 2021;8(1 PG-ofaa531):ofaa531–ofaa531. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34109255 NS -
- 58. Ortiz-Prado E, Henriquez-Trujillo AR, Rivera-Olivero IA, Freire-Paspuel B, Vallejo-Janeta AP, Lozada T, et al. Massive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Testing on Rural Communities in Manabi Province (Ecuador) Reveals Severe COVID-19 Outbreaks. Am J Trop Med Hyg [Internet]. 2021;104(4 PG-1493–1494):1493–4. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=33556041 NS - pmid:33556041
- 59. Kaweenuttayanon N, Pattanarattanamolee R, Sorncha N, Nakahara S. Community surveillance of COVID-19 by village health volunteers, Thailand. Bull World Health Organ [Internet]. 2021;99(5 PG-393–397):393–7. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33958828 NS - pmid:33958828
- 60. Isaac R, Paul B, Finkel M, Moorthy M, Venkateswaran S, Bachmann TT, et al. The burden of COVID-19 infection in a rural Tamil Nadu community. BMC Infect Dis [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-1–10):1–10. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=153283582&site=ehost-live NS -
- 61. Reinders S, Alva A, Huicho L, Blas MM. Indigenous communities’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequences for maternal and neonatal health in remote Peruvian Amazon: a qualitative study based on routine programme supervision. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2020;10(12 PG-44197–44197):e044197–e044197. Available from: NS - pmid:33376182
- 62. Close RM, Coles K, Enos LA, Nashio JT, McAuley JB. Innovative and Integrated Contact Tracing: Indian Health Service, Arizona, December 2020-January 2021. Public Health Rep. (PG-5):5. pmid:35189766
- 63. Porter KA, Ramaswamy M, Koloski T, Castrodale L, McLaughlin J. COVID-19 Among Workers in the Seafood Processing Industry: Implications for Prevention Measures—Alaska, March-October 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(17 PG-622–626):622–6. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150058903&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33914728
- 64. Castro MG, Sloane PD. The Role of a Federally Qualified Health Center in Identification and Management of an Occupational COVID-19 Outbreak: Lessons for Future Infection Surveillance and Response. J Ambul Care Manage [Internet]. 2022;45(1 PG-13–21):13–21. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34392258 NS -
- 65. Cheek C, Elmer H, Anderson T, Baxter T, Wooler M. Decommissioning and recommissioning a regional hospital in response to a COVID-19 outbreak. Rural Remote Health. 2021;21(2 PG-9):9. pmid:33822637
- 66. Tori K, Dinh TTH, Mather C. Healthcare Professional Presenteeism during a COVID-19 Outbreak in an Australian Rural Healthcare Environment: A Case Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(16 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34444088 NS -
- 67. Hammersley J, Mather C, Francis K. Lessons for Workforce Disaster Planning from the First Nosocomial Outbreak of COVID-19 in Rural Tasmania, Australia: A Case Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(15 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34360276 NS - pmid:34360276
- 68. Dunne EM, Maxwell T, Dawson-Skuza C, Burns M, Ball C, Turner K, et al. Investigation and public health response to a COVID-19 outbreak in a rural resort community-Blaine County, Idaho, 2020. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(4 PG-e0250322):e0250322–e0250322. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33882112 NS -
- 69. Hossain AD, Jarolimova J, Elnaiem A, Huang CX, Richterman A, Ivers LC. Effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of infectious diseases: a systematic review. Lancet Public Health [Internet]. 2022;7(3 PG-259–273):e259–73. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=35180434 NS - pmid:35180434
- 70. Hui BB, Brown D, Chisholm RH, Geard N, McVernon J, Regan DG. Modelling testing and response strategies for COVID-19 outbreaks in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. BMC Infect Dis [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-929–929):929. Available from: NS - pmid:34496760
- 71. Wells K, Lurgi M, Collins B, Lucini B, Kao RR, Lloyd AL, et al. Disease control across urban-rural gradients. J R Soc Interface [Internet]. 2020;17(173 PG-20200775):20200775. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33292095 NS - pmid:33292095
- 72. Li TS, Cobb C, Yang J, Baviskar S, Agarwal Y, Li BB, et al. What makes people install a COVID-19 contact-tracing app? Understanding the influence of app design and individual difference on contact-tracing app adoption intention. Pervasive Mob Comput. 2021;75(PG-24):24. pmid:36569467
- 73. Wang B, Zheng H. From blanket quarantine in Wuhan to distant centralized quarantine in Shijiazhuang: the evolution of China’s COVID-19 quarantine approach. Infection [Internet]. 2021;49(4 PG-765–767):765–7. Available from: NS - pmid:33961272
- 74. Kenward C, Pratt A, Creavin S, Wood R, Cooper JA. Population Health Management to identify and characterise ongoing health need for high-risk individuals shielded from COVID-19: a cross-sectional cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9 PG-11):11. pmid:32988953
- 75. Abdelmagid N, Ahmed SAE, Nurelhuda N, Zainalabdeen I, Ahmed A, Fadlallah MA, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield the vulnerable during the COVID-19 outbreak: a qualitative study in six Sudanese communities. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-1–14):1–14. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150933973&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34134680
- 76. Jones J. An Ethnographic Examination of People’s Reactions to State-Led COVID-19 Measures in Sierra Leone. Eur J Dev Res. 2022;34(1 PG-455–472):455–72. pmid:33551578
- 77. Jia ZY, Xu SJ, Zhang ZC, Cheng ZY, Han HQ, Xu HX, et al. Association between mental health and community support in lockdown communities during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from rural China. J Rural Stud. 2021;82(PG-87-97):87–97. pmid:33437114
- 78. Abaluck J, Kwong LH, Styczynski A, Haque A, Kabir MA, Bates-Jefferys E, et al. Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh. Science [Internet]. 2022;375(6577 PG-eabi9069):eabi9069–eabi9069. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34855513 NS - pmid:34855513
- 79. Ejigu BA, Asfaw MD, Cavalerie L, Abebaw T, Nanyingi M, Baylis M. Assessing the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on the dynamics of COVID-19: A mathematical modelling study of the case of Ethiopia. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(11 PG-e0259874):e0259874–e0259874. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34784379 NS - pmid:34784379
- 80. Boudou M, ÓhAiseadha C, Garvey P, O’Dwyer J, Hynds P. Breakpoint modelling of temporal associations between non-pharmaceutical interventions and symptomatic COVID-19 incidence in the Republic of Ireland. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(7 PG-255254–255254):e0255254–e0255254. Available from: NS - pmid:34324566
- 81. Li Y, Hu T, Gai X, Zhang Y, Zhou X. Transmission Dynamics, Heterogeneity and Controllability of SARS-CoV-2: A Rural-Urban Comparison. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(10 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34068947 NS - pmid:34068947
- 82. Dessu S, Tsehay T, Girum T, Timerga A, Solomon M, Tsegaye B, et al. The applicability of basic preventive measures of the pandemic COVID-19 and associated factors among residents in Guraghe Zone. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(8 PG-256598–256598):e0256598–e0256598. Available from: NS - pmid:34432844
- 83. Zhang B, Li ZJ, Jiang L. The Intentions to Wear Face Masks and the Differences in Preventive Behaviors between Urban and Rural Areas during COVID-19: An Analysis Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19 PG-15):15. pmid:34639290
- 84. Schneider APH, Gaedke MA, Koepp J, Reuter EM, Darsie C, Possuelo LG, et al. Social distancing as protection factor against COVID-19 in a non-metropolitan area in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45(PG-11):11.
- 85. Karamidehkordi E, Mousavi SK, Zamani-Abnili F, Es’haghi SR, Ghasemi J, Gholami H, et al. Communicative interventions for preventing the novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak: insights from Iran’s rural and farming communities. J Agric Educ Ext. (PG-33):33.
- 86. Harling G, Gomez-Olive FX, Tlouyamma J, Mutevedzi T, Kabudula CW, Mahlako R, et al. Protective behaviours and secondary harms from non-pharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 epidemic in South Africa: a multisite prospective longitudinal study. medRxiv [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=33200146 NS - pmid:33200146
- 87. Tan X, Song Y, Liu T. Resilience, vulnerability and adaptability: A qualitative study of COVID-19 lockdown experiences in two Henan villages, China. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(2 PG-247383–247383):e0247383–e0247383. Available from: NS - pmid:33630904
- 88. Toccalino D, Haag HL, Estrella MJ, Cowle S, Fuselli P, Ellis MJ, et al. Addressing the Shadow Pandemic: COVID-19 Related Impacts, Barriers, Needs, and Priorities to Health Care and Support for Women Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence and Brain Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35007550 NS - pmid:35007550
- 89. Levitan EB, Howard VJ, Cushman M, Judd SE, Tison SE, Yuan Y, et al. Health care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic by race and social determinants of health among adults >=age 58 years in the REGARDS study. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-2255–2255):2255. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12273-8 NS -
- 90. Liang XJ, Ma RF, Cheng YX, Gong QQ, Li JM, Zhu BY. The Right to Accessible COVID-19 Testing in the Post-Epidemic Period under the Urban-Rural Integration: Haishu District, Ningbo City, China. Sustainability. 2022;14(3 PG-17):17.
- 91. McElfish PA, Purvis R, James LP, Willis DE, Andersen JA. Perceived Barriers to COVID-19 Testing. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(5 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33668958 NS - pmid:33668958
- 92. Islam-Maruf R, Ahmed A, Fumihiko Y, Kimiyo K, Mariko N, Rieko I, et al. Portable Health Clinic as a Telemedicine System with Appropriate Technologies for Unreached Communities. Stud Health Technol Inform [Internet]. 2021;(277 PG-57–67):57–67. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=149951695&site=ehost-live NS -
- 93. Fitzsimon J, Gervais O, Lanos C. COVID-19 Assessment and Testing in Rural Communities During the Pandemic: Cross-sectional Analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill [Internet]. 2022;8(2 PG-e30063):e30063–e30063. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=mesx&NEWS=N&AN=35022158 NS - pmid:35022158
- 94. Hodges E, Lefferts B, Bates E, Desnoyers C, Bruden D, Bruce M, et al. Use of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Remote Communities—Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region, Alaska, September 15, 2020-March 1, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(33 PG-1120–1123):1120–3. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34411078 NS - pmid:34411078
- 95. Ceci A, Munoz-Ballester C, Tegge AN, Brown KL, Umans RA, Michel FM, et al. Development and implementation of a scalable and versatile test for COVID-19 diagnostics in rural communities. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2021;12(1 PG-4400):4400. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34285229 NS - pmid:34285229
- 96. Saini V, Kalra P, Sharma M, Rai C, Saini V, Gautam K, et al. A Cold Chain-Independent Specimen Collection and Transport Medium Improves Diagnostic Sensitivity and Minimizes Biosafety Challenges of COVID-19 Molecular Diagnosis. Microbiol Spectr [Internet]. 2021;9(3 PG-e0110821):e0110821–e0110821. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34878310 NS - pmid:34878310
- 97. Shukla S, Upadhyay V, Maurya VK. Evaluating the efficiency of specimen (sample) pooling for real-time PCR based diagnosis of COVID-19. Indian J Med Microbiol [Internet]. 2021;39(3 PG-339–342):339–42. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33781658 NS - pmid:33781658
- 98. Daigle J, Racher K, Hazenberg J, Yeoman A, Hannah H, Duong D, et al. A Sensitive and Rapid Wastewater Test for SARS-COV-2 and Its Use for the Early Detection of a Cluster of Cases in a Remote Community. Appl Environ Microbiol [Internet]. 2022;88(5 PG-e0174021):e0174021–e0174021. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=34985977 NS -
- 99. Fongaro G, Rogovski P, Savi BP, Cadamuro RD, Pereira JVF, Anna IHS, et al. SARS-CoV-2 in Human Sewage and River Water from a Remote and Vulnerable Area as a Surveillance Tool in Brazil. Food Environ Virol [Internet]. 2021;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=34236606 NS - pmid:34236606
- 100. Desai S, Baghal A, Wongsurawat T, Jenjaroenpun P, Powell T, Al-Shukri S, et al. Chest imaging representing a COVID-19 positive rural U.S. population. Sci Data [Internet]. 2020;7(1 PG-414–414):414. Available from: NS - pmid:33235265
- 101. Gine-Garriga R, Delepiere A, Ward R, Alvarez-Sala J, Alvarez-Murillo I, Mariezcurrena V, et al. COVID-19 water, sanitation, and hygiene response: Review of measures and initiatives adopted by governments, regulators, utilities, and other stakeholders in 84 countries. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 2021;795(PG-148789):148789. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34243010 NS - pmid:34243010
- 102. Tamene A. What it takes to save lives: An assessment of water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities in temporary COVID-19 isolation and treatment centers of Southern Ethiopia: A mixed-methods evaluation. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(8 PG-e0256086):e0256086–e0256086. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34388184 NS -
- 103. Couper I, Walters L, Williams S, Campbell D, White I, Stewart R, et al. Exploring rural doctors’ early experiences of coping with the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. J Rural Health. 2022;(PG-9):9. pmid:35191080
- 104. Ohta R, Matsuzaki Y, Itamochi S. Overcoming the challenge of COVID-19: A grounded theory approach to rural nurses’ experiences. J Gen Fam Med [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=33362984 NS - pmid:33362984
- 105. Du Z, You H, Zhou H, Wang X, Xu J, Li Y, et al. Difficulties encountered by public health workers in COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study based on five provinces. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-656):656. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34225721 NS - pmid:34225721
- 106. Moyo I, Mgolozeli SE, Risenga PR, Mboweni SH, Tshivhase L, Mudau TS, et al. Experiences of Nurse Managers during the COVID-19 Outbreak in a Selected District Hospital in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Healthcare. 2022;10(1 PG-16):16.
- 107. Rebmann T, Alvino RT, Mazzara RL, Sandcork J. Rural infection preventionists’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from focus groups conducted with association of professionals in infection control & epidemiology (APIC) members. Am J Infect Control [Internet]. 2021;49(9 PG-1099–1104):1099–104. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34454682 NS -
- 108. Kharbat A, Abla H, Alkul M, Kile R, White J, Webb CR, et al. PPE decontamination to overcome PPE shortage in rural area during pandemic. Infection prevention in practice [Internet]. 2021;3(3 PG-100145):100145. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34316584 NS - pmid:34316584
- 109. Alum S, Asiimwe M, Kanyomozi G, Nalikka J, Okwaro P, Migisha I, et al. Optimizing Highly Infectious Disease Isolation Unit Management: Experiences From the Infectious Diseases Isolation and Research Unit, Fort Portal, Uganda. Dis Med Public Health Prep. (PG-5):5.
- 110. Quigley DD, Qureshi N, Gahlon G, Gidengil C. Worker and employer experiences with COVID-19 and the California Workers’ Compensation System: A review of the literature. Am J Ind Med. 2022;65(3 PG-203–213):203–13. pmid:35092626
- 111. Kedar E, Scott R, Soule DM, Lovelett C, Tower K, Broughal K, et al. COVID-19 in a rural health system in New York—case series and an approach to management. Rural Remote Health [Internet]. 2021;21(3 PG-6464):6464. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34253026 NS -
- 112. Nixon G, Blattner K, Withington S, Miller R, Stokes T. Exploring the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at the rural hospital-base hospital interface: experiences of New Zealand rural hospital doctors. N Z Med J [Internet]. 2021;134(1545 PG-11–21):11–21. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34788268 NS -
- 113. Jenkins LS, Von Pressentin KB, Naidoo K, Schaefer R. The evolving role of family physicians during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis: An appreciative reflection. Afr j prim health care fam med (Online) [Internet]. 2020;12(1 PG-1–4):1–4. Available from: https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/gim/resource/en/biblio-1257688 NS - pmid:32634002
- 114. Mash RJ, Presence-Vollenhoven M, Adeniji A, Christoffels R, Doubell K, Eksteen L, et al. Evaluation of patient characteristics, management and outcomes for COVID-19 at district hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa: descriptive observational study. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021;11(1 PG-47016–47016):e047016–e047016. Available from: NS - pmid:33500292
- 115. Ferguson C, Fletcher R, Ho P, MacLeod E. Should Australian states and territories have designated COVID hospitals in low community transmission? Case study for Western Australia. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44(5 PG-728–732):728–32. pmid:32854819
- 116. Goldstein E V, Seiber EE. Early Data on Predictors of COVID-19 Treatment Frequency at Community Health Centers. J Prim Care Community Health [Internet]. 2021;12(PG-21501319211069473-21501319211069473):21501319211069470–21501319211069470. Available from: NS - pmid:34939505
- 117. Strumann C, von Meißner WCG, Blickle PG, Held L, Steinhäuser J. Experiences made by family physicians managing patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during spring 2020—a cross-sectional analysis. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes [Internet]. 2021;165(PG-35-42):35–42. Available from: NS - pmid:34474994
- 118. Wernhart S, Förster TH, Weihe E. Outpatient Management of Oligosymptomatic Patients with respiratory infection in the era of SARS-CoV-2: Experience from rural German general practitioners. BMC Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;20(1 PG-N.PAG-N.PAG):N.PAG–N.PAG. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=146869206&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33158425
- 119. Zhang T, Shen X, Liu R, Zhao L, Wang D, Lambert H, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on primary health care and antibiotic prescribing in rural China: qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-1048):1048. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34610843 NS - pmid:34610843
- 120. Al Meslamani AZ, Kassem AB, El-Bassiouny NA, Ibrahim OM. An emergency plan for management of COVID-19 patients in rural areas. Int J Clin Pract [Internet]. 2021;75(10 PG-e14563):e14563–e14563. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34165849 NS - pmid:34165849
- 121. Santos Vieira D, Cavalcante de Sá P, Carozo Torres R, Torres de Oliveira F, da Silva Lima Rocha KR, Chaves Vasconcelos TL, et al. Planejamento da enfermagem frente à COVID-19 numa estratégia de saúde da família: relato de experiência. Saude Coletiva [Internet]. 2020;10(54 PG-2729–2734):2729–34. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=147249137&site=ehost-live NS -
- 122. Singh SS, Singh LB. Training community health workers for the COVID-19 response, India. Bull World Health Organ [Internet]. 2022;100(2 PG-108–114):108–14. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35125535 NS -
- 123. Omoronyia O, Ekpenyong N, Ukweh I, Mpama E. Knowledge and practice of COVID-19 prevention among community health workers in rural Cross River State, Nigeria: implications for disease control in Africa. Pan Afr Med J [Internet]. 2020;37(PG-50):50. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33209177 NS - pmid:33209177
- 124. Dirlikov E, Fechter-Leggett E, Thorne SL, Worrell CM, Smith-Grant JC, Chang J, et al. CDC Deployments to State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Health Departments for COVID-19 Emergency Public Health Response—United States, January 21-July 25, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2020;69(39 PG-1398–1403):1398–403. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=146226509&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33001876
- 125. Dumproff JB, Bishara J, Copeland N, Fredricks T. Integrating US National Guard with Public Health Partners at COVID-19 Testing Sites in West Virginia Counties with High Rural and Minority Populations: Lessons Learned. Health Secur. 2022;20(1 PG-58–64):58–64. pmid:35021896
- 126. Gavana M, Papageorgiou DI, Haidich AB, Kokkali S, Talimtzi P, Paganas A, et al. Perceived risk and pandemic response awareness in low-capacity public primary health care in Greece. Rural Remote Health [Internet]. 2022;22(1 PG-6985):6985. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35077193 NS - pmid:35077193
- 127. Rao KD, Kaur J, Peters MA, Kumar N, Nanda P. Pandemic response in pluralistic health systems: a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 knowledge and practices among informal and formal primary care providers in Bihar, India. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021;11(4 PG-47334–47334):e047334–e047334. Available from: NS - pmid:33931411
- 128. Conroy S, McDonald D. Rapid multi‐professional training for COVID‐19 in rural hospitals. Australian Journal of Rural Health [Internet]. 2020;28(6 PG-618–619):618–9. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=147877935&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33216392
- 129. El Kadri MR, Melo BD, Souza e Souza M, Noal D da S, Serpeloni F, Pereira A dos S. Curso em saúde mental no contexto da Covid-19 com povos indígenas por meio de ensino remoto. Trab Educ Saúde (Online) [Internet]. 2022;20(PG-e00333164-e00333164):e00333164–e00333164. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-77462022000100502 NS -
- 130. Reece S, Johnson M, Simard K, Mundell A, Terpstra N, Cronin T, et al. Use of Virtually Facilitated Simulation to Improve COVID-19 Preparedness in Rural and Remote Canada. Clin Simul Nurs. 2021;57(PG-3-13):3–13. pmid:35915812
- 131. Thomas T, Nobrega JC, Britton-Susino S. Challenges and Collaborations: A Case Study for Successful Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Education in Rural Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Forensic Nurs [Internet]. 2022;18(1 PG-59–63):59–63. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35045043 NS - pmid:35045043
- 132. Rakotonanahary RJL, Andriambolamanana H, Razafinjato B, Raza-Fanomezanjanahary EM, Ramanandraitsiory V, Ralaivavikoa F, et al. Integrating Health Systems and Science to Respond to COVID-19 in a Model District of Rural Madagascar. Front Public Health. 2021;9(PG-10):10.
- 133. Petrie S, Carson D, Peters P, Hurtig AK, LeBlanc M, Simpson H, et al. What a Pandemic Has Taught Us About the Potential for Innovation in Rural Health: Commencing an Ethnography in Canada, the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Front Public Health [Internet]. 2021;9(PG-768624-768624):768624. Available from: NS - pmid:34950628
- 134. Rabunal R, Suarez-Gil R, Golpe R, Martinez-Garcia M, Gomez-Mendez R, Romay-Lema E, et al. Usefulness of a Telemedicine Tool TELEA in the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Telemed J E Health [Internet]. 2020;26(11 PG-1332–1335):1332–5. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med17&NEWS=N&AN=32501747 NS - pmid:32501747
- 135. Said RM, Salem GM. Effect of telephone counselling on the knowledge, attitude and practices of contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Egypt. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med [Internet]. 2021;13(1 PG-1–10):e1–10. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34342477 NS - pmid:34342477
- 136. Huang M, Wen A, He H, Wang L, Liu S, Wang Y, et al. Midwest rural-urban disparities in use of patient online services for COVID-19. J Rural Health [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35261092 NS - pmid:35261092
- 137. Walker VL, Meyer A, Paauw D, Arend M. Health System Success in Delivering Bamlanivimab Within Post-acute and Long-Term Care Facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet]. 2022;23(1 PG-141–145):141–5. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34890559 NS - pmid:34890559
- 138. Wood DA, Aleem A, Davis D. Providing Access To Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Patients In Rural And Underserved Areas. 2021;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=34662052 NS -
- 139. Tran VD, Pham DT, Cao TTN, Bahlol M, Dewey RS, Le MH, et al. Perspectives on COVID-19 prevention and treatment using herbal medicine in Vietnam: A cross-sectional study. Ann Ig [Internet]. 2021;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=34882168 NS -
- 140. Demeke HB, Merali S, Marks S, Pao LZ, Romero L, Sandhu P, et al. Trends in Use of Telehealth Among Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, June 26-November 6, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(7 PG-240–244):240–4. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33600385 NS -
- 141. Ervin K, Weller-Newton J, Phillips J. Primary healthcare clinicians’ positive perceptions of the implementation of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic using normalisation process theory. Aust J Prim Health [Internet]. 2021;27(2 PG-158–162):158–62. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=149879307&site=ehost-live NS -
- 142. Fiske A, Schneider A, McLennan S, Karapetyan S, Buyx A. Impact of COVID-19 on patient health and self-care practices: a mixed-methods survey with German patients. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021;11(9 PG-e051167):e051167–e051167. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34518272 NS - pmid:34518272
- 143. Hsiao V, Chandereng T, Lankton RL, Huebner JA, Baltus JJ, Flood GE, et al. Disparities in Telemedicine Access: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Newly Established Infrastructure during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl Clin Inform [Internet]. 2021;12(3 PG-445–458):445–58. Available from: NS - pmid:34107542
- 144. Jaffe DH, Lee L, Huynh S, Haskell TP. Health Inequalities in the Use of Telehealth in the United States in the Lens of COVID-19. Popul Health Manag [Internet]. 2020;23(5 PG-368–377):368–77. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=32816644 NS - pmid:32816644
- 145. Hughes PM, Verrastro G, Fusco CW, Wilson CG, Ostrach B. An examination of telehealth policy impacts on initial rural opioid use disorder treatment patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Rural Health [Internet]. 2021;37(3 PG-467–472):467–72. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33720447 NS - pmid:33720447
- 146. Katyal N, Narula N, Govindarajan R, Sahota P. Setting Up a Teleneurology Clinic during COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from an Academic Practice. Int J Telemed Appl [Internet]. 2022;2022(PG-4776328):4776328. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm&NEWS=N&AN=35058978 NS -
- 147. Dekker PK, Bhardwaj P, Singh T, Bekeny JC, Kim KG, Steinberg JS, et al. Telemedicine in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Increasing Access to Surgical Care. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open [Internet]. 2021;9(1 PG-e3228):e3228–e3228. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=33564566 NS - pmid:33564566
- 148. Mahmoud MA, Daboos M, Gouda S, Othman A, Abdelmaboud M, Hussein ME, et al. Telemedicine (virtual clinic) effectively delivers the required healthcare service for pediatric ambulatory surgical patients during the current era of COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed descriptive study. J Pediatr Surg [Internet]. 2022;57(4 PG-630–636):630–6. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=prem&NEWS=N&AN=34953564 NS - pmid:34953564
- 149. Adams SJ, Burbridge B, Chatterson L, McKinney V, Babyn P, Mendez I. Telerobotic ultrasound to provide obstetrical ultrasound services remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Telemed Telecare [Internet]. 2020;(PG-1357633X20965422):1357633X20965422–1357633X20965422. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=33076753 NS - pmid:33076753
- 150. Haranath S, Ganapathy K, Kesavarapu S, Kuragayala S, Haranath SP, Kesavarapu SR, et al. eNeuroIntensive Care in India: The Need of the Hour. Neurol India [Internet]. 2021;69(2 PG-245–251):245–51. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150112112&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:33904432
- 151. Wong J, Longhitano A, Yao J, Jayadeva P, Arendshorst K, Grigg L, et al. Remote Device Interrogation Kiosks (ReDInK)—Pharmacy Kiosk Remote Testing of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Rural Victorians. A Novel Strategy to Tackle COVID-19. Heart Lung Circ [Internet]. 2021;30(7 PG-1044–1049):1044–9. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=33612427 NS - pmid:33612427
- 152. Amos AJ, Middleton J, Gardiner FW. Remote mental health clients prefer face-to-face consultations to telehealth during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Australas Psychiatry. (PG-5):5.
- 153. Miyawaki A, Tabuchi T, Ong MK, Tsugawa Y. Age and Social Disparities in the Use of Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan: Cross-sectional Study. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2021;23(7 PG-e27982):e27982–e27982. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34259641 NS - pmid:34259641
- 154. Graves JM, Abshire DA, Amiri S, Mackelprang JL. Disparities in Technology and Broadband Internet Access Across Rurality: Implications for Health and Education. Fam Community Health [Internet]. 2021;44(4 PG-257–265):257–65. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34269696 NS - pmid:34269696
- 155. Yu E, Hagens S. Socioeconomic Disparities in the demand for and use of virtual visits among senior adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. JMIR Aging [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35134746 NS -
- 156. Ayres L, Pelkowitz L, Simon P, Thompson SC. Necessity as the Catalyst of Change: Exploring Client and Provider Perspectives of Accelerated Implementation of Telehealth by a Regional Australian Community Service Organisation during COVID-19 Restrictions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21 PG-20):20. pmid:34769949
- 157. Phenicie R, Acosta Wright R, Holzberg J. Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth During COVID-19: Experience in a Rural County on the United States-Mexico Border. Telemed J E Health [Internet]. 2021;27(8 PG-859–865):859–65. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2021.0111 NS -
- 158. Terry DL, Buntoro SP. Perceived Usefulness of Telehealth Among Rural Medical Providers: Barriers to Use and Associations with Provider Confidence. J Technol Behav Sci [Internet]. 2021;6(4 PG-567–571):567–71. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm&NEWS=N&AN=34109271 NS - pmid:34109271
- 159. Thomson MD, Mariani AC, Williams AR, Sutton AL, Sheppard VB. Factors Associated With Use of and Satisfaction With Telehealth by Adults in Rural Virginia During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2021;4(8 PG-2119530–2119530):e2119530–e2119530. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=151773477&site=ehost-live NS -
- 160. Cao YJ, Chen D, Liu Y, Smith M. Disparities in the Use of In-Person and Telehealth Primary Care Among High- and Low-Risk Medicare Beneficiaries During COVID-19. J Patient Exp [Internet]. 2021;8(PG-23743735211065274):23743735211065270–23743735211065270. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm&NEWS=N&AN=34926805 NS - pmid:34926805
- 161. Ferguson JM, Jacobs J, Yefimova M, Greene L, Heyworth L, Zulman DM. Virtual care expansion in the Veterans Health Administration during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical services and patient characteristics associated with utilization. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2021;28(3 PG-453–462):453–62. pmid:33125032
- 162. Lopez AM, Lam K, Thota R. Barriers and Facilitators to Telemedicine: Can You Hear Me Now? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book [Internet]. 2021;41(PG-25-36):25–36. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34010056 NS - pmid:34010056
- 163. Jiang CY, Strohbehn GW, Dedinsky RM, Raupp SM, Pannecouk BM, Yentz SE, et al. Teleoncology for Veterans: High Patient Satisfaction Coupled With Positive Financial and Environmental Impacts. JCO Oncol Pract [Internet]. 2021;17(9 PG-1362–1374):e1362–74. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34406817 NS - pmid:34406817
- 164. Patt DA, Wilfong L, Toth S, Broussard S, Kanipe K, Hammonds J, et al. Telemedicine in Community Cancer Care: How Technology Helps Patients With Cancer Navigate a Pandemic. JCO Oncol Pract [Internet]. 2021;17(1 PG-11–15):e11–5. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=33434450 NS - pmid:33434450
- 165. Pierce BS, Perrin PB, Tyler CM, McKee GB. The COVID-19 Telepsychology Revolution: A National Study of Pandemic-Based Changes in U.S. Mental Health Care Delivery. American Psychologist [Internet]. 2021;76(1 PG-14–25):14–25. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=148289832&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:32816503
- 166. Wiese LK, Williams IC, Schoenberg NE, Galvin JE, Lingler J. Overcoming the COVID-19 Pandemic for Dementia Research: Engaging Rural, Older, Racially and Ethnically Diverse Church Attendees in Remote Recruitment, Intervention and Assessment. Gerontol Geriatr Med [Internet]. 2021;7(PG-23337214211058919):23337214211058920–23337214211058920. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=pmnm5&NEWS=N&AN=34825019 NS - pmid:34825019
- 167. Harris B, Ajisola M, Alam RM, Watkins JA, Arvanitis TN, Bakibinga P, et al. Mobile consulting as an option for delivering healthcare services in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods study. Digit Health. 2021;7(PG-24):24. pmid:34777849
- 168. Mbunge E, Batani J, Gaobotse G, Muchemwa B. Virtual healthcare services and digital health technologies deployed during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in South Africa: a systematic review. Glob Health J [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35282399 NS - pmid:35282399
- 169. Arcuri R, Bellas HC, Ferreira DD, Bulhoes B, Vidal MCR, de Carvalho PVR, et al. On the brink of disruption: Applying Resilience Engineering to anticipate system performance under crisis. Appl Ergon. 2022;99(PG-12):12.
- 170. Levander XA, Hoffman KA, McIlveen JW, McCarty D, Terashima JP, Korthuis PT. Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis. Addiction science & clinical practice [Internet]. 2021;16(1 PG-72):72. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34895346 NS - pmid:34895346
- 171. Zakumumpa H, Tumwine C, Milliam K, Spicer N. Dispensing antiretrovirals during Covid-19 lockdown: re-discovering community-based ART delivery models in Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2021;21(1 PG-692):692. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34256756 NS - pmid:34256756
- 172. Ortega AC, Valtierra E, Rodriguez-Cuevas FG, Aranda Z, Preciado G, Mohar S. Protecting vulnerable communities and health professionals from COVID-19 associated mental health distress: a comprehensive approach led by a public-civil partnership in rural Chiapas, Mexico. Glob Health Action. 2021;14(1 PG-12):12. pmid:34889715
- 173. Barry V, Dasgupta S, Weller DL, Kriss JL, Cadwell BL, Rose C, et al. Patterns in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage, by Social Vulnerability and Urbanicity—United States, December 14, 2020-May 1, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(22 PG-818–824):818–24. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150746143&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34081685
- 174. Der-Martirosian C, Steers WN, Northcraft H, Chu K, Dobalian A. Vaccinating Veterans for COVID-19 at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35184947 NS - pmid:35184947
- 175. Sun Y, Monnat SM. Rural-urban and within-rural differences in COVID-19 vaccination rates. J Rural Health. 2021;(PG-7):7. pmid:34555222
- 176. Murthy BP, Sterrett N, Weller D, Zell E, Reynolds L, Toblin RL, et al. Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Between Urban and Rural Counties—United States, December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(20 PG-759–764):759–64. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=150462828&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34014911
- 177. Youssef D, Abou-Abbas L, Berry A, Youssef J, Hassan H. Determinants of acceptance of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine among Lebanese health care workers using health belief model. PLoS One [Internet]. 2022;17(2 PG-e0264128):e0264128–e0264128. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35192664 NS - pmid:35192664
- 178. Jarab AS, Al-Qerem W, Mukattash TL. Community pharmacists’ willingness and barriers to provide vaccination during COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan. Hum Vaccin Immunother [Internet]. 2022;(PG-1-5):1–5. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35050841 NS - pmid:35050841
- 179. Carpenter DM, Hastings T, Westrick S, Mashburn P, Rosenthal M, Smith M, et al. Rural community pharmacists’ ability and interest in administering COVID-19 vaccines in the Southern United States. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) [Internet]. 2022;(PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=35221234 NS - pmid:35221234
- 180. Perry M, Akbari A, Cottrell S, Gravenor MB, Roberts R, Lyons RA, et al. Inequalities in coverage of COVID-19 vaccination: A population register based cross-sectional study in Wales, UK. Vaccine. 2021;39(42 PG-6256–6261):6256–61.
- 181. Young-Xu Y, Korves C, Roberts J, Powell EI, Zwain GM, Smith J, et al. Coverage and Estimated Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among US Veterans. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2021;4(10 PG-2128391–2128391):e2128391–e2128391. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=152929157&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34613401
- 182. Nguyen KH, Yankey D, Peng-jun L, Kriss JL, Brewer NT, Razzaghi H, et al. Report of Health Care Provider Recommendation for COVID-19 Vaccination Among Adults, by Recipient COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Attitudes—United States, April-September 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2021;70(50 PG-1723–1730):1723–30. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=154163979&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34914669
- 183. Ioannou GN, Green P, Locke ER, Berry K. Factors associated with early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and adherence to second dose in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(12 PG-e0259696):e0259696–e0259696. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34851970 NS - pmid:34851970
- 184. Zhou L, Ampon-Wireko S, Xu X, Quansah PE, Larnyo E. Media attention and Vaccine Hesitancy: Examining the mediating effects of Fear of COVID-19 and the moderating role of Trust in leadership. PLoS One [Internet]. 2022;17(2 PG-e0263610):e0263610–e0263610. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=35180249 NS - pmid:35180249
- 185. Wu H, Ward M, Brown A, Blackwell E, Umer A. COVID-19 Vaccine intent in appalachian patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord [Internet]. 2022;57(PG-103450):103450. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34911005 NS - pmid:34911005
- 186. Gale J, Knudson A, Meit M, Popat S. Ensuring an Equitable Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines in Rural Communities. 2020.
- 187. Mandal S, Arinaminpathy N, Bhargava B, Panda S. India’s pragmatic vaccination strategy against COVID-19: a mathematical modelling-based analysis. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021;11(7 PG-e048874):e048874–e048874. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34215611 NS - pmid:34215611
- 188. Ovens W, Tomescu S, Harrison E, Crampton T, de Nooy A, Jassat W, et al. Guiding equitable prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccine distribution and strategic deployment in South Africa to enhance effectiveness and access to vulnerable communities and prevent waste. SAMJ S Afr Med J. 2022;112(2 PG-87–95):87–95. pmid:35139989
- 189. Filipski M, Gupta A, Kagin J, Husain A, Grinspun A, Caccavale OM, et al. A local general-equilibrium emergency response modeling approach for sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Econ. 2022;53(1 PG-72–89):72–89.
- 190. Shahzad MA, Qing P, Rizwan M, Razzaq A, Faisal M. COVID-19 Pandemic, Determinants of Food Insecurity, and Household Mitigation Measures: A Case Study of Punjab, Pakistan. Healthcare. 2021;9(6 PG-17):17.
- 191. Jamieson L, van Blerk L. Responding to COVID-19 in South Africa—social solidarity and social assistance. Child Geogr. 2021;(PG-10):10.
- 192. Dutta M, Agarwal D, Sivakami M. The “invisible” among the marginalised: Do gender and intersectionality matter in the Covid-19 response? Indian J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2020;V(4 PG-1–14):1–14. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med18&NEWS=N&AN=34018955 NS -
- 193. Huang GQ, Tsai FS. Social Innovation for Food Security and Tourism Poverty Alleviation: Some Examples From China. Front Psychol. 2021;12(PG-6):6.
- 194. Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, World Bank Harare. Monitoring COVID-19 impact on households in Zimbabwe: Results from a high-frequency telephone survey of households [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awn&AN=LEIDEN-9939689820302711&site=ehost-live&scope=site NS -
- 195. Cardarelli KM, DeWitt E, Gillespie R, Graham RH, Norman-Burgdolf H, Mullins JT. Policy Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Insecurity in Rural America: Evidence from Appalachia. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(23 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medl&NEWS=N&AN=34886518 NS - pmid:34886518
- 196. Davila F, Bourke RM, McWilliam A, Crimp S, Robins L, van Wensveen M, et al. COVID-19 and food systems in Pacific Island Countries, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste: Opportunities for actions towards the sustainable development goals. Agric Syst. 2021;191(PG-11):11. pmid:36570634
- 197. Dixon JM, Weerahewa J, Hellin J, Rola-Rubzen MF, Huang JK, Kumar S, et al. Response and resilience of Asian agrifood systems to COVID-19: An assessment across twenty-five countries and four regional farming and food systems. Agric Syst. 2021;193(PG-19):19. pmid:36284566
- 198. Ferguson CE, Tuxson T, Mangubhai S, Jupiter S, Govan H, Bonito V, et al. Local practices and production confer resilience to rural Pacific food systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mar Pol. 2022;137(PG-11):11. pmid:35035031
- 199. Houessou MD, Cassee A, Sonneveld BJS. The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Security in Rural and Urban Settlements in Benin: Do Allotment Gardens Soften the Blow? Sustainability. 2021;13(13 PG-18):18.
- 200. Cattivelli V, Rusciano V. Social Innovation and Food Provisioning during Covid-19: The Case of Urban-Rural Initiatives in the Province of Naples. Sustainability. 2020;12(11 PG-15):15.
- 201. Paganini N, Adinata K, Buthelezi N, Harris D, Lemke S, Luis A, et al. Growing and Eating Food during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Farmers’ Perspectives on Local Food System Resilience to Shocks in Southern Africa and Indonesia. Sustainability. 2020;12(20 PG-26):26.
- 202. Ragasa C, Lambrecht I, Mahrt K, Zhao H, Aung ZW, Scott J. Can nutrition education mitigate the impacts of COVID‐19 on dietary quality? Cluster‐randomised controlled trial evidence in Myanmar’s Central Dry Zone. Matern Child Nutr [Internet]. 2021;17(4 PG-1–10):1–10. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=152674599&site=ehost-live NS - pmid:34409727
- 203. Durán CA. COVID-19 monetary transfer in El Salvador: determining factors. Rev adm pública (Online) [Internet]. 2021;55(1 PG-140–150):140–50. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-76122021000100140 NS -
- 204. Gelb A, Giri A, Mukherjee A, Rautela R, Thapliyal M, Webster B. Beyond India’s Lockdown: PMGKY Benefits During the COVID-19 Crisis and the State of Digital Payments Abstract [Internet]. 2022. Available from: www.cgdev.org NS -
- 205. Naito Y, Ohta R, Sano C. Solving Social Problems in Aging Rural Japanese Communities: The Development and Sustainability of the Osekkai Conference as a Social Prescribing during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22 PG-15):15. pmid:34831605
- 206. Voda M, Murgu A, Sarpe CA, Graves SM, Avram C. The Tigani Community Adaptability to Changes in Rural Romania and the COVID-19 Impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(20 PG-). Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med19&NEWS=N&AN=34682367 NS -
- 207. Cordoba D, Peredo AM, Chaves P. Shaping alternatives to development: Solidarity and reciprocity in the Andes during COVID-19. World Dev. 2021;139(PG-10):10.
- 208. Misra G, Singh P, Ramakrishna M, Ramanathan P. Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: Understanding Life Experiences and Coping With COVID-19 in India. Front Psychol. 2022;12(PG-14):14. pmid:35185698
- 209. Nur-E-Alam M, Hoque MN, Ahmed SM, Basher MK, Das N. Energy Engineering Approach for Rural Areas Cattle Farmers in Bangladesh to Reduce COVID-19 Impact on Food Safety. Sustainability. 2020;12(20 PG-20):20.
- 210. Zaman R, van Vliet O, Posch A. Energy access and pandemic-resilient livelihoods: The role of solar energy safety nets. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2021;71(PG-5):5. pmid:33106771
- 211.
World Health Organisation. International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. [Internet]. WHO, Geneva. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/operations/international-health-regulations-monitoring-evaluation-framework
- 212.
World Health Organisation. National Action Planning for Health Security. [Internet]. WHO, Geneva. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/operations/international-health-regulations-monitoring-evaluation-framework/national-action-plan-for-health-security
- 213.
World Health Organisation. One Health Operations. [Internet]. WHO, Geneva. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 27]. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/one-health-operations
- 214. UNDRR. National Disaster RIsk Management Plans. [Internet]. Sendai Monitor Analytics. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 27]. Available from: https://sendaimonitor.undrr.org/analytics/global-target/15/6
- 215. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness. COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 27]. Available from: https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf
- 216.
World Health Organisation. International Health Regulations (2005): state party self-assessment annual reporting tool. (WHO/WHE/CPI/2018.16) Geneva: WHO; 2018.
- 217. World Health Organisation. Strengthening the Global Architecture for Health Emergency Preparedness, Response and Resilience. Geneva; 2022.
- 218. Rural Health Advocacy Project. Rural proofing for health: Guidelines. A guide to accounting for rural contexts in health policy, strategic planning and resourcing. [Internet]. Johannesburg; 2015. Available from: www.rhap.org.za