Unintended consequences of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions for the COVID-19 response in Africa: experiences from DRC, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID 19) pandemic is one of the most terrifying disasters of the twenty-first century. The non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented to control the spread of the disease had numerous positive consequences. However, there were also unintended consequences—positively or negatively related to the nature of the interventions, the target, the level and duration of implementation. This article describes the unintended economic, Psychosocial and environmental consequences of NPIs in four African countries. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda. A comprehensive conceptual framework, supported by a clear theory of change was adopted to encompass both systemic and non-systemic interventions. The data collection approaches included: (i) review of literature; (ii) analysis of secondary data for selected indicators; and (ii) key informant interviews with policy makers, civil society, local leaders, and law enforcement staff. The results were synthesized around thematic areas. RESULTS: Over the first six to nine months of the pandemic, NPIs especially lockdowns, travel restrictions, curfews, school closures, and prohibition of mass gathering resulted into both positive and negative unintended consequences cutting across economic, psychological, and environmental platforms. DRC, Nigeria, and Uganda observed reduced crime rates and road traffic accidents, while Uganda also reported reduced air pollution. In addition, hygiene practices have improved through health promotion measures that have been promoted for the response to the pandemic. All countries experienced economic slowdown, job losses heavily impacting women and poor households, increased sexual and gender-based violence, teenage pregnancies, and early marriages, increased poor mental health conditions, increased waste generation with poor disposal, among others. CONCLUSION: Despite achieving pandemic control, the stringent NPIs had several negative and few positive unintended consequences. Governments need to balance the negative and positive consequences of NPIs by anticipating and instituting measures that will support and protect vulnerable groups especially the poor, the elderly, women, and children. Noticeable efforts, including measures to avoid forced into marriage, increasing inequities, economic support to urban poor; those living with disabilities, migrant workers, and refugees, had been conducted to mitigate the negative effects of the NIPs.