Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [−.47, −.11], p -value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [−0.07, −.34], p -value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p -value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during “lean”, pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.

Less than 30% of people in Africa received a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine even 18 months after vaccine development 1 . Here, motivated by the observation that residents of remote, rural areas of Sierra Leone faced severe access difficulties 2 , we conducted an intervention with last-mile delivery of doses and health professionals to the most inaccessible areas, along with community mobilization. A cluster randomized controlled trial in 150 communities showed that this intervention with mobile vaccination teams increased the immunization rate by about 26 percentage points within 48–72 h. Moreover, auxiliary populations visited our community vaccination points, which more than doubled the number of inoculations administered. The additional people vaccinated per intervention site translated to an implementation cost of US $33 per person vaccinated. Transportation to reach remote villages accounted for a large share of total intervention costs. Therefore, bundling multiple maternal and child health interventions in the same visit would further reduce costs per person treated. Current research on vaccine delivery maintains a large focus on individual behavioural issues such as hesitancy. Our study demonstrates that prioritizing mobile services to overcome access difficulties faced by remote populations in developing countries can generate increased returns in terms of uptake of health services 3 . A cluster randomized controlled trial in Sierra Leone shows that targeting access to vaccines in remote areas increases uptake, an approach that can be used to improve vaccine equity in developing countries.

The COVID-19 outbreak had severe adverse impacts on the health and wealth of households in lower-income countries (LICs), and has affected even more severely female-headed households in LICs. Using high-frequency phone surveys in Sierra Leone, we show that female-headed households are likely to rely on cheaper food alternatives (e.g., Cassava) compared to maleheaded households and are more food insecure. These effects are more nuanced among the poorest families owning one or no assets. Furthermore, female-headed households had less access to COVID-19 information, were less likely to adopt preventive measures (e.g., masks and social distancing) at the onset of the pandemic, and show greater signs of vaccine hesitancy in the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs.

Are ordinary citizens or political party leaders better positioned to select candidates? While the American primary system lets citizens choose, most democracies rely instead on party officials to appoint or nominate candidates. The consequences of these distinct design choices are unclear: while officials are often better informed about candidate qualifications, they may value traits, like party loyalty or willingness to pay for the nomination, at odds with identifying the best performer. We partnered with both major political parties in Sierra Leone to experimentally vary how much say voters have in selecting Parliamentary candidates. Estimates suggest that more democratic procedures increase the likelihood that parties select voters’ most preferred candidates and favor candidates with stronger records of public goods provision.

Background The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [−.47, −.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [−0.07, −.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. Conclusions Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during “lean”, pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health. Nursena Aksunger and colleagues investigate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in eight low- and middle-income countries. Author summary Why was this study done? The worldwide economic and health crises triggered by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have had a significant influence on mental health, with the estimated prevalence of depression having increased by more than 25% in high-income countries. Although the adverse consequences of the pandemic on living standards have been most severe in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. What did the researchers do and find? The purpose of this research is to investigate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. Before and during the pandemic, the mental health of 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64.0% female) was measured using survey data. Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated depression screening instruments and a sample-specific weighted index of depression questions. We found that depression symptoms were associated with a significant increase in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic (0.29 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) [−.47, −.11], p-value = 0.002) and that the average recovery of 0.07 SD was not statistically significant in the subsequent period (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41). What do these findings mean? We showed a substantial negative correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health after adjusting for seasonality, suggesting that the pandemic might induce long-term depression, especially in LMICs with poor mental health support facilities. We also provided evidence for seasonal changes in mental health depending on agricultural crop cycle. This seasonality should be considered when examining changes in mental health over time in order to prevent drawing inaccurate conclusions. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative analyses, although the study was limited by the fact that not all samples were representative of the national population and the mental health indicators differed among samples.

Although several welfare improving technologies are available, the adoption of these technologies remains puzzlingly low. This appears to be especially true for prospective adopters residing in Low Income Countries (LICs), for whom the adoption of these technologies would be most beneficial.This thesis focuses on factors that have been considered to prevent the adoption of welfare improving technologies in LICs, test the short and longer term impact of strategies aiming at increasing uptake for two different technologies, and studies two specific social processes that may underlay the adoption decision – though not testing their direct impact on the adoption decision for a specific technology.In Chapter 1, the General Introduction, I introduce the topic and main research question, and provide an overview of the methodologies used throughout this thesis.Chapter 2 uses a field experiment to study the impact of subsidies on the uptake of a capital intensive technology for the production of gas for cooking and lighting from renewable sources, which requires a substantial behavioral shift from prospective adopters.Chapter 3 uses a field experiment to study the impact of subsidies on the longer term adoption process of an affordable solar technology for the production of light and which does not require much effort from the prospective adopter. In particular, the chapter studies the impact of subsidies on the uptake, usage, re-adoption, decision of individuals and the diffusion of a pico-solar lampChapter 4 uses a lab-in-the field experiment with village leaders and village residents to build an indicator for quality of leadership and uses it to test how the quality of leadership affects the behaviour of village residents. It is important to mention that the study does not explore the causal relationship between quality of leaderships and villager behaviour, and uses a very narrow definition of “quality of leadership”.Using an artefactual field experiment, Chapter 5 studies the differences in individual risk preferences between spouses within a household, and develops a metric to measure individual bargaining power over a joint decision, and how the relative influence exercised by each spouse influences households’ investment decisions in specific domains. Similarly to chapter 4, this chapter does not explore any causal relationship.Finally, Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the main findings of this thesis, provides policy implications, presents the main limitations of the research approach and offers recommendations for future research.

Working Paper No. 26160 Are ordinary citizens or political party leaders better positioned to select candidates? While the direct vote primary system in the United States lets citizens choose, it is exceptional, as the vast majority of democracies rely instead on party officials to appoint or nominate candidates. Theoretically, the consequences of these distinct design choices on the selectivity of the overall electoral system are unclear: while party leaders may be better informed about candidate qualifications, they may value traits—like party loyalty or willingness to pay for the nomination—at odds with identifying the best performer. To make progress on this question, we partnered with both major political parties in Sierra Leone to experimentally vary how much say ordinary voters, as opposed to party officials, have in selecting Parliamentary candidates. We find evidence that more democratic selection procedures increase the likelihood that parties select the candidate most preferred by voters, favor candidates with stronger records of local public goods provision, and alter the allocation of payments from potential candidates to party officials.

Preliminary Draft, Please do not cite or circulate without authors' permission