Local characterization of the COVID-19 response: the case of a lockdown in Lusaka, Zambia.


Journal

Global health research and policy
ISSN: 2397-0642
Titre abrégé: Glob Health Res Policy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101705789

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 09 2021
Historique:
received: 01 04 2021
accepted: 03 09 2021
entrez: 1 10 2021
pubmed: 2 10 2021
medline: 7 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked heated debate among scholars on the relevance of lockdowns. There are those in favor of the lockdown and others who are critical of it. However, despite the increased interest in understanding the relevance of lockdowns, there still has not been much focus on its relevance in countries like Zambia. Thus, with the help of the Social Representation Theory (SRT), we set out to explore and document the local characterization of the lockdown by residents of Lusaka, Zambia. We recruited our participants through convenient and purposive sampling techniques. This was done through the use of the ZAMTEL public phone records. Initial contact was made to potential participants, and they were asked of their availability and willingness to participate in the interview. Upon agreeing to participate, they were included in the sample. A total of 68 people were selected to take part in this study. Their age ranged from 20 to 76 years old. 33 of them were male and 35 females. After this, we conducted interviews with the 68 participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, our interviews were conducted via telephone in conformity with the recommendations from the IRB in Lusaka and the advice of the ministry of health. We anonymized the demographic characteristics and responses from our participants. Later, thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. The lockdown was on one hand lauded for slowing down the incidence rates, preventing fatalities, and protecting the healthcare system from collapse. On the other hand, it was criticized for exacerbating poverty levels, unemployment rates, increasing the rate of mental health problems, aiding gender-based violence, and intensifying political repression and corruption. The results speak to the complexity in the characterization of the lockdown as a response to COVID-19 in Lusaka, Zambia. This observation demonstrates the folly of viewing, applying and characterizing the COVID-19 lockdown as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in Lusaka, Zambia. Rather than establishing the lockdown as an incontestable good, as it is depicted by some scholars or as useless by its critics, our findings instead demonstrate the diversity and complexity in how it is locally viewed by Lusaka residents. The study provides grounds for caution on simplistic and binary characterization of lockdowns. It indicates the need for careful dialog between the designers of lockdowns and citizens in order to tailor such interventions to local realities in context-specific ways. It also shows that though the development of such interventions, all the various and complex elements it embodies must be taken into account in order to realize optimum outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked heated debate among scholars on the relevance of lockdowns. There are those in favor of the lockdown and others who are critical of it. However, despite the increased interest in understanding the relevance of lockdowns, there still has not been much focus on its relevance in countries like Zambia. Thus, with the help of the Social Representation Theory (SRT), we set out to explore and document the local characterization of the lockdown by residents of Lusaka, Zambia.
METHODS
We recruited our participants through convenient and purposive sampling techniques. This was done through the use of the ZAMTEL public phone records. Initial contact was made to potential participants, and they were asked of their availability and willingness to participate in the interview. Upon agreeing to participate, they were included in the sample. A total of 68 people were selected to take part in this study. Their age ranged from 20 to 76 years old. 33 of them were male and 35 females. After this, we conducted interviews with the 68 participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, our interviews were conducted via telephone in conformity with the recommendations from the IRB in Lusaka and the advice of the ministry of health. We anonymized the demographic characteristics and responses from our participants. Later, thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
The lockdown was on one hand lauded for slowing down the incidence rates, preventing fatalities, and protecting the healthcare system from collapse. On the other hand, it was criticized for exacerbating poverty levels, unemployment rates, increasing the rate of mental health problems, aiding gender-based violence, and intensifying political repression and corruption. The results speak to the complexity in the characterization of the lockdown as a response to COVID-19 in Lusaka, Zambia. This observation demonstrates the folly of viewing, applying and characterizing the COVID-19 lockdown as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in Lusaka, Zambia.
CONCLUSION
Rather than establishing the lockdown as an incontestable good, as it is depicted by some scholars or as useless by its critics, our findings instead demonstrate the diversity and complexity in how it is locally viewed by Lusaka residents. The study provides grounds for caution on simplistic and binary characterization of lockdowns. It indicates the need for careful dialog between the designers of lockdowns and citizens in order to tailor such interventions to local realities in context-specific ways. It also shows that though the development of such interventions, all the various and complex elements it embodies must be taken into account in order to realize optimum outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34593052
doi: 10.1186/s41256-021-00220-4
pii: 10.1186/s41256-021-00220-4
pmc: PMC8482737
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

38

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Jul;8(7):e888-e889
pubmed: 32416766
Nature. 2020 May 4;:
pubmed: 32366975
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):931-934
pubmed: 32164834
Lancet. 2021 Jul 17;398(10296):185
pubmed: 34274052
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 2;18(1):155
pubmed: 29499703
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1368-1370
pubmed: 32618281
Int J Equity Health. 2014 Mar 19;13:24
pubmed: 24645826
Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):373
pubmed: 33484634
Pan Afr Med J. 2021 Jan 05;38:3
pubmed: 33520072
Pan Afr Med J. 2021 Jun 03;39:102
pubmed: 34512838
Front Public Health. 2020 Oct 19;8:504
pubmed: 33194933
Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397(10281):1238-1240
pubmed: 33773113
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;20(10):1127
pubmed: 32979326
Health Syst Reform. 2018;4(4):313-323
pubmed: 30395765
Lancet. 2020 Apr 25;395(10233):1315
pubmed: 32334687
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e488-e496
pubmed: 32119825
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Jun;9(6):e724-e725
pubmed: 33711261
SN Bus Econ. 2021;1(4):54
pubmed: 34778826
Lancet. 2021 May 22;397(10288):1885-1894
pubmed: 34022988
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 Dec 31;18(1):1-6
pubmed: 34227914
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Apr 15;19(1):127
pubmed: 30987608
BMC Public Health. 2021 Mar 23;21(1):580
pubmed: 33757461
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):
pubmed: 33028699
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):523-524
pubmed: 32145766
Lancet. 2021 May 22;397(10288):1860-1861
pubmed: 34022973
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):669-677
pubmed: 32240634
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2021 Nov;2:100127
pubmed: 33907741
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Apr;9(4):e39
pubmed: 33581079
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2015 Oct 05;15:26
pubmed: 26438398
Lancet. 2021 Apr 3;397(10281):1265-1275
pubmed: 33773118
Glob Public Health. 2021 Jun;16(6):947-963
pubmed: 33750269
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Jun;2(6):e293-e294
pubmed: 32346671
Lancet. 2020 Dec 5;396(10265):1777
pubmed: 33278920
Lancet Public Health. 2020 May;5(5):e256
pubmed: 32199471
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):483
pubmed: 32061284
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Sep;9(9):e1177-e1178
pubmed: 34252380
J Med Ethics. 2020 Oct;46(10):652-659
pubmed: 32817362

Auteurs

Choolwe Muzyamba (C)

University College Utrecht, Campusplein 1, 3584 ED, Utrecht, The Netherlands. muzyamba@merit.unu.edu.
, Lusaka, Zambia. muzyamba@merit.unu.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH