Back

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Cost of Community-Based Self-monitoring among Sex Workers Testing Positive for COVID-19 in Zimbabwe: A Mixed-methods Study.

Kabonga, I.; Mangenah, C.; Watadzaushe, C.; Madanhire, C.; Ruhode, N.; Dunkley, Y.; Karin, H.; Corbett, E. L.; Cowan, F. M.; Sibanda, E. L.

2026-03-23 public and global health
10.64898/2026.03.16.26348020 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSex workers struggled to adhere to isolation guidelines following COVID-19 diagnosis because of financial pressure to keep working. We co-developed and evaluated for feasibility, acceptability, and cost an intervention for promoting isolation and community-based self-monitoring for COVID-19. MethodsSex workers testing positive for COVID-19 received the following co-developed intervention: i) risk-differentiated support, including immediate hospitalization and/or treatment for serious illness, and community-based self-monitoring for those at risk of progressing to severe illness, ii) food packs lasting two weeks. Using Proctors Framework, we interviewed purposively selected health-workers and sex workers before intervention implementation (26 sex workers and 24 health workers) and during implementation (8 sex workers of whom 5 tested positive, and 5 health workers) to evaluate the intervention. We determined intervention development and implementation costs using program data. ResultsThe intervention was implemented between March-June 2023. Sex workers and health workers reported that the intervention was highly acceptable and was implemented with fidelity. Food packs were highly appreciated; participants said they promoted isolation although vulnerability to non-food financial pressures persisted. Unanticipated impacts were increased testing uptake following introduction of food packs. Self-monitoring at home was acceptable although fear of stigma prevented some participants from seeking the needed support. The cost per sex worker testing positive was $49 and $54 respectively excluding/including intervention co-development costs. ConclusionA co-developed intervention for promoting isolation and community-based self-monitoring for COVID-19 was feasible and acceptable, with costs comparing favorably with similar interventions. Addressing stigma could optimise implementation and potential for future pandemics.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
27.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
24.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.3%
4
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.8%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.8%
6
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
8
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
9
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
12
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
13
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
16
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
17
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
18
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
19
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.5%
21
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
22
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%