"They cannot afford to feed their children and the advice is to stay home. How‥?": A qualitative study of community experiences of COVID-19 response efforts across Syria.

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 highlighted the importance of meaningful engagement between communities and health authorities. This is particularly challenging in conflict-affected countries such as Syria, where social protection and food security needs can hinder adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccine uptake. This study explored community perspectives of COVID-19 and health authority responses across the three main areas of control in Syria, i.e. Syrian government-controlled areas (GCA), autonomous administration-controlled areas (AACA), and opposition-controlled areas (OCA).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 22 purposively-sampled Syrians accessing health services in AACA, GCA, or OCA in 2021 to provide approximately equal representation by governance area and gender. We analysed data thematically using deductive and inductive coding.

FINDINGS

Interviewees in all areas described how their fears of COVID-19 and willingness to adhere to NPIs decreased as their local COVID-19 epidemics progressed and NPIs disrupted access to household essentials such as work and food. Community-level responses were minimal and ad hoc, so most people focused on personal or household protective efforts and many mentioned relying on their faith for comfort. Misinformation and vaccine hesitancy were common in all areas, linked to lack of transparency from and mistrust of local health authorities and information sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased health actors' need to engage with communities to control disease spread, yet most NPIs implemented in Syria were inappropriate and adherence decreased as the pandemic progressed. This was exemplified by lockdowns and requirements to self-isolate, despite precarious reliance on daily wages, no subsidies for lost income, individual self-reliance, and mistrust/weak communication between communities and health authorities. We found minimal community engagement efforts, consisting entirely of informing with no efforts to consult, involve, collaborate, or empower. This contributed to failures of health actors to contextualise interventions in ways that respected community understandings and needs.