key: cord-0925980-3e8a818c
authors: Abdelmagid, N.; Ahmed, S. A. E.; Nurelhuda, N.; Zainalabdeen, I.; Ahmed, A.; Fadlallah, M. A.; Dahab, M.
title: Acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield the vulnerable during the COVID-19 outbreak: a qualitative study in six Sudanese communities
date: 2020-12-14
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160
sha: 0d09feecd7df9afffbd2955e509046ab824abdff
doc_id: 925980
cord_uid: 3e8a818c

Background Shielding of high-risk groups from coronavirus disease (COVID-19), either within their households or safe communal structures, has been suggested as a realistic alternative to severe movement restrictions in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in low-income countries. To our knowledge, this concept has not been tested or evaluated in resource-poor settings. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield persons at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, during the COVID-19 epidemic in six communities in Sudan. Methods We purposively sampled participants from six communities, illustrative of urban, rural and forcibly-displaced settings. In-depth telephone interviews were held with 59 members of households with one or more members at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Follow-up interviews were held with 30 community members after movement restrictions were eased across the country. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a two-stage deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results Most participants were aware that some people are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes but were unaware of the concept of shielding. Most participants found shielding acceptable and consistent with cultural inclinations to respect elders and protect the vulnerable. However, extra-household shielding arrangements were mostly seen as socially unacceptable. Participants reported feasibility concerns related to the social isolation of shielded persons and loss of income for shielding families. The acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies were reduced after movement restrictions were eased, as participants reported lower perception of risk in their communities and increased pressure to comply with social commitments outside the house. Conclusion Shielding is generally acceptable in the study communities. Acceptability is influenced by feasibility, and by contextual changes in the epidemic and associated policy response. The promotion of shielding should capitalise on the cultural and moral sense of duty towards elders and vulnerable groups. Communities and households should be provided with practical guidance to implement feasible shielding options. Households must be socially, psychologically and financially supported to adopt and sustain shielding effectively. Keywords Shielding; COVID-19; Sudan; High-risk; Resource-poor; Acceptability; Feasibility; Participatory analysis

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease (COVID- 19) outbreak a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" [1] . The first COVID-19 case in Sudan was reported on March 13, 2020. The Government of Sudan immediately declared a national emergency [2] and enforced schools and universities closures [3] . Bans of mass gatherings [4] and border closures [5] followed shortly after. However, a reprieve in late March to let in stranded Sudanese travellers [6] may have resulted in the importation of more COVID-19 cases [7] . Following increasingly restrictive dusk-to-dawn curfews in Khartoum, the capital, a lockdown was started on April 18 2020 [8] , and, soon after, movement restrictions were extended to other parts of the country [7] .

From the beginning, Sudan adopted a test, track and quarantine strategy for containment of the epidemic [9] . Like other African countries, Sudan acted early, instituting a lockdown when the country had recorded 66 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 10 deaths [10] .

COVID-19 comes to Sudan at a time of heightened political and economic fragility, after emerging from decades of authoritarian rule. The response in Sudan has been challenged by a pre-pandemic fragile health system, weak social protection systems and difficulties in accessing global emergency funding for COVID-19 [11] . Likely, the true magnitude of the COVID-19 epidemic in Sudan is significantly underestimated by official statistics, as testing capacity is limited and fraught with operational and logistical difficulties [12] . Moreover, among 28 African countries, Sudan has the lowest levels of adherence to crucial prevention measures, such as mask-wearing, physical distancing and compliance with movement restrictions [13] , which may partially be due to severe economic hardship faced by the population during the epidemic.

In low-income countries like Sudan, prevention is key to mitigating the impact of COVID-19. Shielding of highrisk individuals, either within their homes or in safe communal structures, has been suggested as an alternative to widely-enforced social distancing measures such as lockdowns. The approach recognises that, in these settings, high-risk individuals, especially the elderly, usually co-reside with young people and children in large households [14] . While shielding does not significantly affect transmission dynamics [15] , focusing limited resources on shielding higher-risk individuals aims to reduce pressure on health systems, prevent COVID-19 deaths and allow economic activities to resume. Through mathematical modelling, shielding seems to be effective at reducing mortality from COVID-19, particularly when coupled with moderate social distancing and high levels of selfisolation of those with mild COVID-19 symptoms [15] . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint

The shielding approach is premised on sound epidemiological principles that aim to reduce the number and duration of effective contacts among high-risk groups and therefore, their risk of infection [16] . However, the practical application of shielding in resource-poor settings may be challenging, and effective shielding strategies will need to be developed and adapted locally, in a manner that is acceptable and feasible to the different contexts [17] [18] [19] . In this study, we explored the acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies in six illustrative communities in Sudan, to provide information to government and non-government COVID-19 responders in Sudan seeking to protect high-risk groups during the epidemic.

This qualitative study was conducted in participation with Sudan's Youth Peer Education Network (Y-PEER Sudan), a nationwide network of trained youth volunteers active in promoting health and youth participation. At the time of the study, Y-PEER Sudan was conducting awareness-raising campaigns on COVID-19 prevention in communities across Sudan. We selected six communities in five Sudanese states, illustrative of different contextual settings. In Khartoum state, we selected Umbadda district, a high-density poor urban population, and Tuti Island, a close-knit agricultural community in the heart of the capital. We also selected two other urban communities, El-Obeid, a high-density city in North Kordofan State, and Damazin North, a peri-urban setting on the shared country border with South Sudan. Finally, we selected one rural village in the south of Gezira state, and one internally displaced person's (IDP) camp in South Darfur (Dereij IDP camp). At the time of planning in early April 2020, only Khartoum state had reported confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths.

The study was conducted remotely, complying with safety precautions and movement restrictions due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Youth peers were trained remotely, through pre-recorded video and audio training sessions on qualitative research, shielding strategies, informed consent and study procedures, developed and delivered by the first author (NA). Training materials were shared via social media platforms, and this was followed by a live question and answer social media session with three co-authors (NA, NN and MD).

We interviewed two groups of participants in the six study sites at different times: once during periods of movement restriction enforced in April 2020 and once after restrictions were eased in July 2020. To be eligible, participants in the first round of interviews had to be an adult member of a household that had at least one member at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Participants in the second round of interviews were any adults in . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint the community. For this study, we defined those at high risk as persons aged 60 years or more, or persons of any age with one of the following chronic diseases: hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, chronic kidney failure, cancer and persons with immunosuppressive diseases or receiving immunosuppressant therapy.

Youth peers purposively identified eligible participants through their existing community contacts. We identified eleven participants in the second group through snowball sampling. In each study site, we aimed to interview 15 community members: 10 participants in the first phase, and 5 in the follow-up phase. We aimed to achieve a balanced sample of age and gender among household participants. We considered this sample size to be a manageable workload for volunteers working during an epidemic and the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in the first phase, and an epidemic and rainy season in the second phase. After a preliminary analysis of data for each site, we revisited the need to increase the sample size to reach data saturation.

Semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews were done by trained youth volunteers at a time convenient for consenting participants between May 10 and June 20, 2020, during the first round of data collection, and July 01 to August 10, 2020, in the second round. After obtaining participants' permission, all interviews were audiorecorded. The interviews lasted between 40 and 70 minutes.

Interviewers used a pre-tested interview guide that contained open-ended questions. The interview guide covered the following topics: (1) knowledge of high-risk groups and protective measures for them, (2) the acceptability and feasibility of each of three shielding scenarios: (i) all extra-household activities are delegated to one family member who lives in a separate part of the house from the rest of the family, (ii) the high-risk person voluntarily shields, alone or with a carer, in a separate part of the house, (iii) neighbouring households or members of an extended family voluntarily 'house-swap' and group their high-risk members into dedicated houses, and, finally, (3) preferred and trusted sources and communication channels for information on COVID-19. Finally, participants were asked to suggest alternative or improved shielding strategies that would be suitable for their families or communities, and effective measures for promoting and implementing shielding in their communities.

Interviews were conducted in Arabic.

Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim by youth volunteers. We analysed data using a content analysis approach in two stages. The first stage was a participatory analysis through focus group discussions with . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint the interviewers to generate preliminary ideas for transcript analysis, gain a thorough understanding of the context of data collection and identify immediate insights to assist responders. After the interviews were completed, interviewers were asked to listen to their recordings, familiarise themselves with the data and complete a summary report, summarising key ideas that emerged in conversations with participants. The interviewers were then invited to participate in group discussions with co-authors (SAEA, NA, NN, MD, IZ, AA), who used the reports to prompt follow-up questions and make use of the interpersonal dynamic of group discussions to generate new insights.

These groups discussions were recorded and used by the co-authors to develop a y report of preliminary findings for quick dissemination to Y-PEER Sudan, the Ministry of Health and other COVID-19 responders.

The second stage was a thematic analysis using the transcripts. Data for each site was independently analysed for possible themes by the co-authors (NA, SAEA, NN, MD, IZ and AA). Themes were derived from the interview guide (deductive approach), by allowing emergent themes from the data (inductive approach) [20] . The analysis was then collated by the second author (SAEA) in a single spreadsheet. Through discussion amongst co-authors, consensus on themes and subthemes was reached, and categorisation was agreed. The themes were interpreted further and compared to the objectives of the study to generate the conclusions. Illustrative quotations were extracted by SAEA, translated into English by NA, and back-translated to Arabic by MAF. This article adheres to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guidelines [21] .

We interviewed 89 participants: 59 during periods of movement restrictions and 30 participants after movement restrictions were eased ( Table 1 ). The first group consisted of 25 females and 24 males, with an average age of 34 years old (age ranging from 20 to 70 years). The second group of participants consisted of 25 males and 5 females, with an average age of 44 years old (age ranging from 20 years to 83 years).

We present the findings by the following themes: knowledge about groups at high risk of severe illness or death due to COVID-19, knowledge and implementation of protective measures for high-risk groups, knowledge and implementation of strategies to shield high-risk persons, acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies during periods of severe movement restrictions, participants' recommendations to make shielding more feasible for communities, acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies after severe movement restrictions were eased, and participants' opinion on effective methods for promotion of shielding in their communities. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint

To protect people at high risk, a few participants mentioned that those living with them should wash their hands and change their clothes when returning home to avoid transmitting the infection within the household. However, the majority of participants reported measures for those at high risk themselves, such as maintaining their general health and well-being and reducing social contacts outside the household.

"I have a special diet for [my father], and I give him vitamin C from time to time to boost his immunity, these are the things that I managed to do. I manage to keep him at home because he is elderly. For the rest of the family members, I look after them too, but I give him special care because he is the oldest person at home and is elderly, so he can be vulnerable to anything"male, 28 years, ElObeid

To reduce social contacts, participants mentioned advising older people to reduce or abandon social visits and gatherings, wear face masks and abstain from physical greetings outside the home. Other participants mentioned supportive measures to help those at high risk stay at home. For example, in El-Obeid, a participant reported that there was a local community-based initiative called "Dawak Fi Beitak" which arranges regular home delivery of medications to those with chronic illnesses.

Nonetheless, participants reported challenges to compliance with these protective measures. These include low risk perception of COVID-19, COVID-19 denial, sociocultural barriers and financial challenges. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint

Other participants reported that high-risk family members insist on maintaining their social relations by welcoming visitors or visiting others, continuing to pray at the mosque and attending important social events such as funerals. Knowledge and implementation of strategies to shield those at high risk of severe illness or death due to Although most participants had good knowledge of high-risk groups and mentioned several protective measures, the shielding concept was new to them. Many participants confused it with isolation or quarantine and interpreted it as a complete disconnection from the family and community. There was also confusion as to whether shielding occurred for those that have COVID-19-like symptoms or as a prevention measure. Nonetheless, four participants were already implementing some form of shielding at home at the time of the study. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint Acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies during periods of severe movement restrictions For this study, we suggested and discussed three shielding strategies with the respondents to explore their opinions on their acceptability and feasibility. The strategies are: (i) all extra-household activities are delegated to one family member who lives in a separate part of the house from the rest of the family, (ii) the high-risk person voluntary shields, alone or with a carer, in a separate part of the house, (iii) neighbouring households or members of an extended family voluntarily 'house-swap' and group their high-risk members into dedicated houses.

Delegation of extra-household activities to one family member who lives in a separate part of the house from the rest of the family In general, this strategy was acceptable to many participants, either fully or partially.

"This is a very good suggestion. I am now using this strategy and applying it at home. I am the only one in the family who leaves the household for shopping -I bring anything that is needed. No one else leaves the house."male, 28 years, El-Obeid Although many agreed that it is feasible to choose one household member for all extra-household activities, most were not convinced that isolating that person within the household is possible or necessary. Instead, most participants emphasised that the delegated person should adopt infection prevention measures when returning home, such as washing hands, changing clothes or bathing.

"This first suggestion is the best one. Each household selects one family member to provide all their needs, but that person should not isolate themselveswhen they come from outside, they can put their clothes in the sun, and wash their hands with water and soap"male, 22 years, Tuti Island "My husband always goes out to bring our household needs. He is very careful not to harm anyone or a child at home if he is feeling unwell or sick, but we have never isolated him, and we never willwe will not leave him alone" -female, 43 years, Umbadda

One participant reported concerns about isolation resulting in the stigmatisation of the delegated person:

"This is a good suggestion but difficult to implement. We live in a community where social interaction is intense, and so isolation is difficult. The feeling of isolation may make the person feel stigmatised and trigger thoughts that they may actually be infected. This is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Other participants reported that the high-risk family member would refuse to be isolated, even if the rest of the family accepts it. This refusal is somewhat linked to the lack of awareness of personal risk by the elderly themselvesseveral participants reported that older people were not as aware as others of the risks of COVID-

A few participants, particularly in Dereij IDP camp and Umbadda, reported a lack of space within low-income households to facilitate shielding.

As with the first strategy, participants suggested the use of prevention and safety measures when dealing with elderly or high-risk persons at home, such as masks and handwashing, as an alternative to isolation.

In this strategy, where there is not enough space for shielding within the home, neighbours or extended families voluntarily swap houses to give high-risk individuals and their carers a separate house to shield in, and a house for those at low risk to live in and continue to work. For most participants, this strategy was neither acceptable nor feasible.

can only be comfortable in their own home" -female, 27 years, Gezira Respondents explained that households have different habits and rituals within their homes and that elderly family members need the protection of their family and the comfort of their own homes for their well-being. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint 

Several respondents suggested measures to help those at high-risk to stay at home, including the delivery of regular medications and home-based clinical monitoring services. Others emphasised the importance of maintaining access to health services for the elderly and those with chronic illnesses during the COVID-19 epidemic.

To support at-home shielding, many participants suggested the provision of financial and in-kind support, especially for poor households, to enable families with high-risk members to shield at home and comply with prevention measures. For instance, participants suggested the provision of food baskets, soap, gloves and hand sanitiser. Expectations of external assistance were generally higher in Dereij IDP camp compared to other study sites. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint others] can transmit the disease. Some people are convinced that COVID-19 exists, and other people say they would rather die of COVID-19 than starvation." -female, 23 

Participants also mentioned that COVID-19 transmission in the general population should be reduced, and suggested increasing information dissemination through the media, provision of advice from healthcare workers to local communities, and promoting preventive behaviours in public areas. Participants in rural areas also requested better access to COVID-19 testing as testing centres were only available in urban areas. Some participants also suggested better enforcement of policies, such as lockdowns and inter-state travel restrictions, to create an environment that is more supportive of shielding. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Challenges to implementation of shielding were similar to those mentioned by participants interviewed during the period of movement restrictions, including socially-driven unwillingness to segregate family members, particularly the elderly, and financial losses as a result of shielding. However, we noticed that compliance with social commitments outside the household, such as visits to family, funerals and weddings, became more pressing after movement restrictions were eased. 

Many participants mentioned that diverse mass communication channels should be used to broadcast information widely, including television, radio, social media, text messages and displaying visual materials in public places. Different channels reach different population groups. For example, social media is widely used by younger community members, especially in urban areas, whilst radio still plays a significant role in rural areas where internet coverage is low and televisions not widely present. Within their communities, many participants mentioned the use of mobile activities, such as vehicles with megaphones, and edutainment activities such as theatre.

"The source we use most frequently is Facebook, and also radio, but mostly Facebook and WhatsApp, especially among young people. Older people and rural areas [use] radio and television. They also listen to the local 'sheikh' is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint

To complement mass communication, many participants mentioned the importance of using local, trusted persons to promote shielding. Influential community figures mentioned by participants included members of neighbourhood committees (primarily youth), religious leaders, teachers, local health workers and other community leaders, such as members of the local civil administration. In urban settings, local health workers, neighbourhood committees, religious leaders and family members were the most trusted persons, whereas in rural areas, family members, especially those working in the medical field, were influential. In the IDP camp, local community and religious leaders were the most credible sources of information. Some participants mentioned that trusted persons could use their existing platforms to share information, for example, imams giving sermons in mosques. Other participants suggested more in-person activities such as household visits with infection prevention precautions to families with high-risk family members.

Several participants mentioned the importance of using local dialects and languages to reach all groups within the community, particularly the elderly, as many mentioned that current mass communication activities use formal language that is not widely understood or preferred by their communities. Other participants commented that some activities are inappropriately designed; for example, one participant mentioned that mobile megaphones travel too fast to be fully heard or operate at inappropriate times of the day.

"I think awareness activities need to be continuous, especially in rural areas who may not have a television or radio. Awareness-raising activities using simple means can be implemented there, and they can use local dialects.

Many [elderly] people now hear the megaphone from the street, and they ask me "what are they saying?" and I have to explain to them what is being said about COVID-19" -female, 32 years, Dereij IDP camp Some participants recommended that positive messaging and language should be used to promote preventive behaviour, and to avoid promoting preventive behaviour by instigating fear in the population, through language such as "the virus will kill you…". Other participants recommended that high-risk community members need to be targeted with tailored risk communication to increase their understanding of their risk of severe illness and death, and to empower them to take measures, such as shielding, to protect themselves.

In low-resource settings, prevention is key to mitigating the impact of COVID-19. Shielding of high-risk individuals, either within their homes or in safe communal structures, has been suggested as a realistic alternative to widely-enforced social distancing measures such as lockdowns that may cause severe economic repercussions [22] . While shielding is premised on sound epidemiological principles and has shown through modelling to cause . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint significant reductions in hospitalisations and mortality due to COVID-19, wide-scale implementation of shielding can be fraught with social, cultural and operational challenges. In this study, we explored the acceptability and feasibility of shielding strategies during the COVID-19 epidemic in six illustrative communities in Sudan. We elicited contextual adaptations for the implementation and promotion of shielding in the study communities.

Across the different study settings, the majority of participants knew that some individuals were at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, particularly the elderly. This high level of knowledge may be indicative of effective dissemination of information about COVID-19 through multiple channels across the study sites. Similar levels of adequate knowledge of groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes were reported in other low-and middle-income settings, including Kenya and Egypt [23, 24] . Despite that, only a few participants knew of measures to reduce intra-household contacts with persons at high risk. Many participants initially confused shielding with quarantine or isolation, and further information was needed to clarify the difference between these measuressimilar misunderstandings were reported by a study in Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [25] . Study participants were, however, positive when presented with concrete options for protecting high-risk family members within the household.

Shielding of high-risk individuals was generally acceptable, and many participants' remarks referred to strong Sudanese traditions of protecting the elderly and the vulnerable. Consultations with crisis-affected communities in Yemen also reported acceptance of shielding within the context of strong cultural tendencies to protect the elderly and most vulnerable [25] . Similarly, a shielding intervention in Ethiopia leveraged a culture that values community solidarity and cohesion, where communities traditionally prioritise those most in need of protection [26] .

Our findings indicate that there was no outright acceptance or rejection of any of the proposed shielding strategies.

However, study participants were on a broad spectrum in terms of readiness to implement shielding. In general, shielding strategies within the household were acceptable, while shielding outside the household was widely unacceptable due to concerns about privacy, cultural norms and compromises in caregiving for shielded family members. Consultations by humanitarian actors with displaced communities in Yemen and Lebanon yielded similar findings of strong preference of household-based shielding and an aversion to shielding outside the household [27] . In Yemen, community members found shielding within the extended family acceptable where extended families live in compounds of neighbouring houses [25] . In our study, participants from the displacement camp were more accepting of extra-household shielding; interviews with displaced Syrians in opposition-. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint controlled camps in Northwest Syria found a similar willingness to consider house swapping arrangements for shielding [28] .

We also found that acceptability of shielding is not static, but is influenced by contextual changes, where enthusiasm for shielding had diminished in study communities after severe movement restrictions were eased.

The new context was one where a change in government strategy fuelled widely-prevalent beliefs that the epidemic had indeed passed and created increased pressure to comply with social commitments. These findings are corroborated by previous research, which showed that both government response measures and perceived risk of the severity of respiratory infection epidemics had a significant influence on behavioural intentions towards social distancing [29] [30] [31] .

In all our study communities, feasibility was a determinant of acceptability. Feasibility was challenged both socially and financially by study participants. Among the elderly, the loss of social capital due to eliminating social contacts outside the home, especially in mosques and social gatherings, was a significant barrier to the feasibility of shielding. Within the household, participants had concerns about the implications of segregation within the household on family well-being, with some suggesting less strict separation combined with infection and prevention measures such as maintaining hand hygiene within the household. Furthermore, a few participants raised doubts about the sustainability of full compliance with segregation within the household, particularly where none of the family members was unwell. These findings indicate that while shielding is widely acceptable, the effectiveness of shielding in these communities may be lower than predicted by mathematical models, which assume drastic reductions in contacts within the household [15] . Furthermore, this may indicate an intentionbehaviour gap amongst participants who accept household-level shielding but question their ability to implement or sustain it. Previous researchers have also shown that low self-efficacy attenuates behavioural intentions and behaviour adoption in the context of epidemics of respiratory infectious disease [29, 31, 32] .

Our findings also show that a shielding promotion campaign requires a nuanced approach that addresses different is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint 35]. These findings indicate that shielding promotion requires a targeted risk communication strategy for those at high risk of severe COVID-19.

Our study has limitations. Firstly, in this study, we used interviews to explore the acceptability and feasibility of shielding. In acceptability research, focus group discussions are preferred over interviews as they have the advantage of allowing group members to collectively brainstorm and debate ideas, opinions, and recommendations [36] . However, given the movement restrictions posed by COVID-19, remote interviews were the appropriate choice for our study, and we are confident that we reached data saturation, as no additional themes emerged in the final interviews at any of the study sites. Secondly, we conducted the interviews remotely by telephone, which is subject to challenges including challenges to establishing rapport, absence of visual cues and contextual data, and the relatively short time of the interview to avoid respondent fatigue [37] [38] [39] . Thirdly, in this study, we inquired about the acceptability of a new concept of which the majority of study participants had no prior knowledge. It is possible that some participants provided their opinion without considering the implications of shielding on all aspects of their lives. However, given that reasons for and against acceptance were recurrent across participants and study sites, we are confident that this limitation had a minimal effect on the findings, probably in the direction of acceptance. Finally, given our study design, findings cannot be generalised to all Sudanese communities.

Shielding promotion in the study communities should provide realistic options and practical guidance for minimising social contacts within households, and should be accompanied by financial and social interventions to support feasibility. Financial assistance by the Government of Sudan and other donors should be directed to interventions that support shielding, such as providing home-based treatment for shielded individuals, and direct financial support for families, including where the breadwinner is at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Interventions targeting shielding families and the larger community are needed to address concerns about psychological well-being and social isolation of shielded individuals. In the former category, shielding promotion should adopt an approach that highlights and leverages local traditions for protecting and the elderly and most vulnerable in times of hardship, and interventions for incentivising and celebrating local community action that supports shielding. For individuals and families that are shielding, supportive interventions may include psychological health guidance and support, distribution of shielding aids such as soap, face coverings and cleaning supplies, and innovative remote socialisation methods. To provide a supportive environment for shielding, shielding promotion should occur in the context of broader communication interventions and policy responses that enhance risk perception of COVID-19, address misinformation and incentivise compliance with preventive . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.

is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint behaviours in the population. Finally, to improve uptake, shielding promotion should be time-limited, by actively promoting the strategy when there are early indicators of increasing incidence of COVID-19, and reducing promotion when incidence and risk of COVID-19 are deemed low by responders.

Our study findings provide valuable insights and recommendations for COVID-19 responders in Sudan and similar resource-poor settings. We conclude that shielding is generally acceptable in the study communities, and that acceptability is influenced by feasibility, and by contextual changes in the epidemic and associated policy response. Shielding promotion interventions in Sudanese communities may capitalise on the cultural sense of duty towards elders and vulnerable groups and should address different COVID-19 beliefs and perceptions. Promotion campaigns should include targeted risk communication and shielding promotion amongst individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Households should be provided with practical guidance to implement realistic household-level shielding options, with social, psychological and financial support interventions to sustain shielding effectively. Furthermore, communities should be incentivised and rewarded for supporting and enabling shielding. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

The copyright holder for this this version posted December 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.20248160 doi: medRxiv preprint

Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Radio Dabanga. Sudan declares health emergency to combat coronavirus

Coronavirus measures: Sudan's Council of Ministers issues directions

Sudan confirms second coronavirus case, Khartoum bans mass gatherings

Reuters staff. UPDATE 1-Sudan closes airports and borders over coronavirus fears

Managing COVID-19 Pandemic During a Time of Transition

Sudan locks down capital Khartoum after coronavirus cases rise

Sudan: Corona Virus -COVID-19 Country Preparedness and Response Plan

World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard

Sudan's transitional government must be supported through COVID-19. Here's why. The Conversation

Partnership for Evidence-Based Response to COVID-19. Finding the Balance: Public Health and Social Measures in Sudan

Intergenerational Coresidence in Developing Countries

Response strategies for COVID-19 epidemics in African settings: a mathematical modelling study

Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases

Considerations and Principles for Shielding People at High Risk of Severe Outcomes from COVID-19. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform

Will the Higher-Income Country Blueprint for COVID-19 Work in Low-and Lower Middle-Income Countries? Glob Health Sci Pract

Challenges of adopting coronavirus precautions in lowincome countries. Institute for Fiscal Studies

Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies). Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual

The economic impact of COVID-19 lockdowns in sub-Saharan Africa. International Growth Centre

Perceptions, and Attitude of Egyptians Towards the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, practices and needs of households in informal settlements in

Key Considerations: Emerging Evidence on Shielding Vulnerable Groups During COVID-192020

I exist because of we': shielding as a communal ethic of maintaining social bonds during the COVID-19 response in Ethiopia

Ten years of war! You expect people to fear a 'germ'?": A qualitative study of initial perceptions and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic among displaced communities in opposition-controlled northwest Syria

Perception-based influence factors of intention to adopt COVID-19 epidemic prevention in China

Social capital and health-protective behavior intentions in an influenza pandemic

The importance of coping appraisal in behavioural responses to pandemic flu

Protection motivation theory and social distancing behaviour in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic

Attitude and Practice towards COVID-19 among people in Bangladesh during the pandemic: a cross-sectional study

Attitude, and Practice of High-Risk Age Groups to Coronavirus Disease-19 Prevention and Control in Korem District

Attitude and Practice Towards COVID-19 Among Chronic Disease Patients at Addis Zemen Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia

Qualitative methods to ensure acceptability of behavioral and social interventions to the target population

Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Qualitative Interviewing: a Research Note

Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?

Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: a research note

Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: The ethical approval for the study was obtained from Sudan's National Health Research Ethics Committee based at the Federal Ministry of Health (number 1-4-20) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Research Ethics Committee (number 22051). All participants provided verbal informed consent, including explicit permission to record the interview and to publish anonymised quotes from the interview

We are grateful to the youth peers for their critical role in data collection and preliminary analysis, and for their valuable insights into the context at the study sites. We thank Dr Jennifer Palmer and Professor Bayard Roberts

Not applicable

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests