As of November 14, 2021, all S&P 500 sector indices had recovered to levels above those of January 2020, prior to full economic effects of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic taking hold. However, different sectors recovered at different rates to sit at widely different levels above their pre-pandemic levels. This suggests that the effect of the coronavirus on financial markets in the United States is directly affected by how the virus has impacted various parts of the underlying economy. Which industry performed the best during the coronavirus pandemic? Companies operating in the information technology (IT) sector have been the clear winners from the pandemic, with the IT S&P 500 sector index sitting at almost ** percent above early 2020 levels as of November 2021. This is perhaps not surprising given this industry includes some of the companies who benefitted the most from the pandemic such as ************** and *******. The reason for these companies’ success is clear – as shops were shuttered and social gatherings heavily restricted due to the pandemic, online services such shopping and video streaming were in high demand. The success of the IT sector is also reflected in the performance of global share markets during the coronavirus pandemic, with tech-heavy NASDAQ being the best performing major market worldwide. Which industry performed the worst during the pandemic? Conversely, energy companies fared the worst during the pandemic, with the S&P 500 sector index value sitting below its early 2020 value as late as July 2021. Since then it has somewhat recovered, and was around ** percent above January 2020 levels as of October 2021. This reflects the fact that many oil companies were among the share prices suffering the largest declines over 2020. A primary driver for this was falling demand for fuel in line with the reduction in tourism and commuting caused by lockdowns all over the world. However, as increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates throughout 2021 led to lockdowns being lifted and global tourism reopening, demand has again risen - reflected by the recent increase in the S&P 500 energy index.

In the first quarter of 2020, global stock indices posted substantial losses that were triggered by the outbreak of COVID-19. The period from March 6 to 18 was particularly dramatic, with several stock indices losing more than ** percent of their value. Worldwide panic hits markets From the United States to the United Kingdom, stock market indices suffered steep falls as the coronavirus pandemic created economic uncertainty. The Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 are two indices that track company performance in the United States, and both lost value as lockdowns were introduced in the country. European markets also recorded significant slumps, which triggered panic selling among investors. The FTSE 100 – the leading share index of companies in the UK – plunged by as much as ** percent in the opening weeks of March 2020. Is it time to invest in tech stocks? The S&P 500 is regarded as the best representation of the U.S. economy because it includes more companies from the leading industries. However, helped in no small part by its focus on tech companies, the Nasdaq 100 has risen in popularity and seen remarkable growth in recent years. Global demand for digital technologies has increased further due to the coronavirus, with remote working and online shopping becoming part of the new normal. As a result, more investors are likely to switch to the tech stocks listed on the Nasdaq 100.

While the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic caused all major stock market indices to fall sharply in March 2020, both the extent of the decline at this time, and the shape of the subsequent recovery, have varied greatly. For example, on March 15, 2020, major European markets and traditional stocks in the United States had shed around ** percent of their value compared to January *, 2020. However, Asian markets and the NASDAQ Composite Index only shed around ** to ** percent of their value. A similar story can be seen with the post-coronavirus recovery. As of November 14, 2021 the NASDAQ composite index value was around ** percent higher than in January 2020, while most other markets were only between ** and ** percent higher. Why did the NASDAQ recover the quickest? Based in New York City, the NASDAQ is famously considered a proxy for the technology industry as many of the world’s largest technology industries choose to list there. And it just so happens that technology was the sector to perform the best during the coronavirus pandemic. Accordingly, many of the largest companies who benefitted the most from the pandemic such as Amazon, PayPal and Netflix, are listed on the NADSAQ, helping it to recover the fastest of the major stock exchanges worldwide. Which markets suffered the most? The energy sector was the worst hit by the global COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, oil companies share prices suffered large declines over 2020 as demand for oil plummeted while workers found themselves no longer needing to commute, and the tourism industry ground to a halt. In addition, overall share prices in two major stock exchanges – the London Stock Exchange (as represented by the FTSE 100 index) and Hong Kong (as represented by the Hang Seng index) – have notably recovered slower than other major exchanges. However, in both these, the underlying issue behind the slower recovery likely has more to do with political events unrelated to the coronavirus than it does with the pandemic – namely Brexit and general political unrest, respectively.

The impact from COVID is dire to economies, and G20 countries are no exception irrespective of how developed their market are. This is due to how investors respond to bad and good news alike. Using daily data, for the G20 countries and data on COVID, we employ quantile regression (QR) and quantile-on-quantile regression (QQR) to explore the asymmetric nexus between COVID cases and G20 stock indices returns. Our results show that the pandemic fundamentally has a significant negative effect on all G20 stock returns with a heterogeneous nature across portions of the returns. Also, at varying quantiles of the distribution of stock, we highlight the fact that COVID pandemic has rather occasioned an asymmetric effect on G20 stock returns. Conversely, we notice positive link between the COVID and stock returns at the upper quantiles when the market started to bounce back from the crash. While the pandemic has largely slowed down, it is not completely swept out and the impacts may linger for a little long, hence investors are recommended to be more particular in the stock indices they wish to invest as they observe the erratic dynamics across the G20. The study is important to understand that for investors and policy-makers in the G20 countries, there are differences in how the COVID pandemic affected each country through their stock markets, and this is more complex than meets the eye. It should be noted that while concerted efforts are needed to address happenings like these, they should not be uniform. Investors need this information to spread their finances across the G20 markets to safeguard against losing it all.

Since the first confirmed case of coronavirus in the Mediterranean country in January 2020, the Spanish stock market index IBEX-35 suffered the consequences of the outbreak of the disease, much like the rest of the world's indexes. The biggest impact was reported during the first few days of March, when the Spain's principal stock exchange saw a plunge in their stocks that set the index under the 7,000 point mark. Madrid was the Spanish autonomous community that was most affected by the spread of the coronavirus during this period, with over 350 thousand cumulative cases as of December 2020.

In the context of the COVID-19’s outbreak and its implications for the financial sector, this study analyses the aspect of hedging and safe-haven under pandemic. Drawing on the daily data from 02 August 2019 to 17 April 2020, our key findings suggest that the contagious effects in financial assets’ returns significantly increased under COVID-19, indicating exacerbated market risk. The connectedness spiked in the middle of March, consistent with lockdown timings in major economies. The effect became severe with the WHO’s declaration of a pandemic, confirming negative news effects. The return connectedness suggests that COVID-19 has been a catalyst of contagious effects on the financial markets. The crude oil and the government bonds are however not as much affected by the spillovers as their endogenous innovation. In term of spillovers, we do find the safe-haven function of Gold and Bitcoin. Comparatively, the safe-haven effectiveness of Bitcoin is unstable over the pandemic. Whereas, GOLD is the most promising hedge and safe-haven asset, as it remains robust during the current crisis of COVID-19 and thus exhibits superiority over Bitcoin and Tether. Our findings are useful for investors, portfolio managers and policymakers interested in spillovers and safe havens during the current pandemic.

As of August 2020, the S&P 500 index had lost ** percent of its value due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Great Crash, which began with Black Tuesday, remains the most significant loss in value in its history. That market crash lasted for 300 months and wiped ** percent off the index value.

The aim of the special survey of the GESIS panel on the outbreak of the corona virus SARS-CoV-2 in Germany was to collect timely data on the effects of the corona crisis on people´s daily lives. The study focused on questions of risk perception, risk minimization measures, evaluation of political measures and their compliance, trust in politics and institutions, changed employment situation, childcare obligations, and media consumption. Due to the need for timely data collection, only the GESIS panel sub-sample of online respondents was invited (about three quarters of the sample). Since, due to time constraints, respondents could only participate in the online survey but not by mail, the results cannot be easily transferred to the overall population. Further longitudinal surveys on Covid-19 with the entire sample of the GESIS panel are planned for 2020.

Topics: Risk perception: Probability of events related to corona infection in the next two months (self, infection of a person from close social surrondings, hospital treatment, quarantine measures regardless of whether infected or not, infecting other people)

Risk minimization: risk minimization measures taken in the last seven days (avoided certain (busy) places, kept minimum distance to other people, adapted school or work situation, quarantine due to symptoms or without symptoms, washed hands more often, used disinfectant, stocks increased, reduced social interactions, worn face mask, other, none of these measures).

Evaluation of the effectiveness of various policy measures to combat the further spread of corona virus (closure of day-care centres, kindergartens and schools, closure of sports facilities, closure of bars, cafés and restaurants, closure of all shops except supermarkets and pharmacies, ban on visiting hospitals, nursing homes and old people´s homes, curfew for persons aged 70 and over or people with health problems or for anyone not working in the health sector or other critical professions (except for basic purchases and urgent medical care).

Curfew compliance or refusal: Willingness to obey a curfew vs. refusal; reasons for the compliance with curfew (social duty, fear of punishment, protection against infection, fear of infecting others (loved ones, infecting others in general, a risk group); reasons for refusal of curfew (restrictions too drastic or not justified, other obligations, does not stop the spread, not affected by the outbreak, boring at home, will not be punished).

Evaluation of the effectiveness of various government measures (medical care, restrictions on social life such as closure of public facilities and businesses, reduction of economic damage, communication with the population).

Trust in politics and institutions with regard to dealing with the coronavirus (physician, local health authority, local and municipal administration, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Federal Government, German Chancellor, Ministry of Health, World Health Organization (WHO), scientists).

Changed employment situation: employment status at the beginning of March; change in occupational situation since the spread of coronavirus: dependent employees: number of hours reduced, number of hours increased, more home office, leave of absence with/ without continued wage payment , fired, no change; self-employed: working hours reduced, working hours increased, more home office, revenue decreased, revenue increased, company temporarily closed by the authorities, company temporarily voluntarily closed, financial hardship, company permanently closed or insolvent, no change.

Childcare: children under 12 in the household; organisation of childcare during the closure of day-care centres, kindergartens and schools (staying at home, partner stays at home, older siblings take care, grandparents are watching, etc.)

Media consumption on Corona: information sources used for Corona (e.g. nationwide public or private television or radio, local public or private television or radio, national newspapers or local newspapers, Facebook, other social media, personal conversations with friends and family, other, do not inform myself on the subject); frequency of Facebook usage; information about Corona obtained from regional Facebook page or regional Facebook group.

Demography: sex; age (categorized); education (categorized); intention to vote and choice of party (Sunday question); Left-right self-assessment; marital status; size of household.

Additionally coded: Respondent ID;...

Brazil was one of the countries most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America and the world considering the number of cases, deaths, and the duration of lockdowns. Between 2020 and 2022, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) were adopted at the municipal level, with 5,568 municipalities and the Federal District taking health-related actions. We present a new dataset revealing the complexity of this situation by reporting data based on thirty-seven surveys taken by mayors between 23 March 2021 and 24 March 2022. The number of participating municipalities in each survey varied over time. The database indicates in which rounds each municipality participated. The minimum number of participating municipalities was 1,328 (23.8%), while the maximum reached 3,591 (64.49%), showing significant variation. The median was 2,461 (44.19%), and the mean of 2,482 (44.57%) suggests that, in general, municipal participation was close to the median, suggesting the data are representative. Finally, the first quartile was 2,063, and the third quartile was 2,831. The table titled “participation” presents the participation percentages for each of the rounds. This dataset deals with the need to monitor and share information about fragmented policies designed to tackle health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Quantifying these initiatives and how they varied across municipalities can help us to understand the effectiveness of interventions in reducing virus transmission. We offer information over time on a series of measures to encourage social distancing, implement the vaccination programme, provide infrastructure to treat infected people, and facilitate how local governments would eventually ease these measures. This information can contribute to the institutional learning of health systems worldwide, assisting in future situations where a highly contagious virus challenges society. Methods Information on local NPI policies related to COVID-19 was collected through a telephone survey conducted directly with mayors, who had the option of receiving a password-protected link to respond to the online questionnaire later or to update previous responses. We focused on information concerning three essential dimensions related to the pandemic response: the monitoring of restrictive measures, infrastructure to treat infected people, and the implementation of the vaccination programme. We have included the week that respondents received the questionnaire, the initial date the questionnaire was presented to respondents, and the final date of questionnaire submission. We collaborated with the Brazilian Confederation of Municipalities (CNM) to collect these data. The cooperation was formalised in a meeting with the CNM on 9 April 2020, and a written agreement was signed by the first and last authors of this article. The authors were given permission to describe, publish, and analyse the dataset. Prior to this current dataset with information from 2021 and 2022, the first and last authors of this dataset had already shared an initial dataset with lockdown measures in Brazil that refer to a survey conducted on October 19 2020, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.vdncjsxs2. Similar to our previous dataset that refers to a single survey in the initial days of COVID-19 pandemic, the data we now share on 37 surveys, are freely available to the public and to other academics for analysis. As Brazil’s largest association of municipalities, the CNM has the email and phone numbers of all elected mayors in the country; the wide reach of the association makes it an ideal partner for large-scale data collection. The partnership was established to study the impact of decentralised measures in Brazil and the effects of decentralisation on the spread of infectious diseases. After the establishment of the cooperation agreement, the CNM added other questions to the questionnaire that were of interest to its municipal monitoring, such as questions related to the possible impact of the pandemic on municipal budgets. Thirty-seven rounds of questionnaires were conducted, totalling 239 questions. Our database has 15 columns related to municipal identification, 4 on waiting for a bed, 6 on stock and yield of vaccines, 5 on intubation sets, 6 on restrictive measures, 3 on oxygen stocks in hospitals, COVID-19 centres, and other facilities, 4 on the stock of vaccines, 1 on financial resources, 3 on the situation in the UPAs, 3 on the social consequences of the pandemic, 2 on the care of people with health consequences resulting from COVID-19 infection, and 198 on vaccination. Usage notes As not all municipal authorities answered all the questions, we suggest that users of this dataset consider additional sources of information to document the implementation of missing policies, preferably using official sources of information such as local decrees. However, as decrees are not always available online, secondary sources, such as media reports, may need to be consulted. We invite researchers to use these data to deepen their understanding of the pandemic and support health policymakers’ efforts in other health emergencies. Additionally, by combining our database with other government sources, such as those from the Superior Electoral Court, we offer tools to investigate effects of politics on public health policies during the pandemic and thus generate institutional learning for health systems, empirically demonstrating how political decisions influence public health policies. For example, we can analyse how the alignment of a particular mayor with the former president, elected in 2018, their party affiliation, and other such factors affected political decisions relating to pandemic response measures.

Marine Recreational Fishing (MRF) is a highly attended complex activity, extremely evident along the coastlines, and mainly practiced among riparian communities. For that reason, this activity plays an important role to effectively contribute to the collective well-being, both from the social and economic points of view. However, it may negatively affect the fish stocks and the marine environment in general, mainly due to the removal of biological resources. The growing need to evaluate the magnitude of marine recreational fishing is recognized worldwide, especially in the last decade, when inclusive fishing programs began to focus their attention on this fishing activity. Based on its unexpected evidence and its wider repercussion on social behavior, the COVID-19 pandemic is considered by the scientific community as one of the most unique opportunities to better understand the social phenomenon and their repercussion on the environment. In this work will be reported very preliminary results on the consistency of marine recreational fishing in the case study of the Marche region (Italy). Number of recreational fishers and fishing effort were estimated through a telephone survey conducted in the Italian side of the Northern Adriatic Sea (FAO GFCM Geographical Sub Area 17) by interviewing 580 households. The sampling strategy also included a recall survey, which was carried out every month on a list of recruited fishers. In this manner, additional information was collected, such as detailed fishing effort, catches, and expenditures. In addition, biological data of catches were estimated through several on-site surveys. The information collected from January and December 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of social restrictions and access to marine places, inevitably impacting on marine recreational fishing features, including the biological resources and the related economic aspects.

View data of the S&P 500, an index of the stocks of 500 leading companies in the US economy, which provides a gauge of the U.S. equity market.

The provided dataset contains financial and operational metrics spanning from January to September 2020 for a company operating in the UK. It reflects key aspects like revenue, expenses, profit, customer count, transactions, stock price, market sentiment, loan approval rate, employee count, and marketing spend.

London, as a part of the UK, likely shares these trends but could have its specific nuances due to being a distinct economic hub within the country. In this period:

1. Financial Performance: The company's revenue fluctuates throughout the months, peaking at £65,090 in June and dipping to £35,184 in July. Despite varying expenses, profits generally stay positive, showcasing resilience in managing costs against revenue. London, being a financial center, might witness higher revenue or fluctuations due to specific industries concentrated there.

2. Customer Engagement: Customer metrics show variation. Customer count ranges from 131 to 426, with transactions varying from 57 to 188. This indicates fluctuations in customer activity, potentially influenced by market trends, seasonal patterns, or even regional events.

3. Stock Performance: Stock prices show fluctuation, hitting a high of 138.53 and a low of 78.79. Market sentiment, indicating public confidence, also fluctuates, potentially influencing stock prices. London's stock market might reflect similar volatility but could be influenced by the performance of prominent companies headquartered there.

4. Business Operations: Loan approval rates stay relatively stable between 70% to 97%, indicating a consistent approach to risk management. Employee count remains somewhat constant, which could signify stable operations without significant expansion or downsizing.

5. Marketing and Growth: The company's marketing spend varies, suggesting a willingness to adapt strategies based on performance or seasonal demands. London might have higher marketing expenditures due to the competitive market and the need to stand out amidst numerous businesses.

6. Economic Impact: Economic factors affecting the UK market—Brexit discussions, global economic shifts, or even local policies—might influence these metrics. London, as a financial center, could be more sensitive to global economic changes, impacting revenue, market sentiment, and stock prices more profoundly.

7. Covid-19 Influence: Given the timeframe (2020), the dataset might reflect the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The varying metrics could illustrate the company's adaptation strategies in response to changing consumer behaviors and economic uncertainties.

In London specifically, these trends might amplify due to its prominence in finance, trade, and services. The city's diverse industries and international connections might lead to more pronounced fluctuations in financial indicators like stock prices and market sentiment. Moreover, its position as a global economic hub might expose businesses to unique challenges and opportunities, potentially reflected in the provided dataset.

Understanding London's specific dynamics within the UK would require deeper analysis, considering sector-specific influences, competitive landscape, and regional economic factors. Nevertheless, this dataset offers insights into the company's adaptability and performance within the broader context of the UK's economic landscape.

According to data gathered in spring 2020, the share price of Live Nation dropped from ***** U.S. dollars on February 19, 2020, the highest record thus far for the year, to ***** dollars on March 4, 2020. The coronavirus has impacted Live Nation's stock, and upon the WHO (World Health Organization) announcing that the coronavirus was officially classified as a pandemic on March 11, the company's share price dropped even more to just over ** dollars.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) index dropped around ***** points in the four weeks from February 12 to March 11, 2020, but has since recovered and peaked at ********* points as of November 24, 2024. In February 2020 - just prior to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the DJIA index stood at a little over ****** points. U.S. markets suffer as virus spreads The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a turbulent period for stock markets – the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite also recorded dramatic drops. At the start of February, some analysts remained optimistic that the outbreak would ease. However, the increased spread of the virus started to hit investor confidence, prompting a record plunge in the stock markets. The Dow dropped by more than ***** points in the week from February 21 to February 28, which was a fall of **** percent – its worst percentage loss in a week since October 2008. Stock markets offer valuable economic insights The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a stock market index that monitors the share prices of the 30 largest companies in the United States. By studying the performance of the listed companies, analysts can gauge the strength of the domestic economy. If investors are confident in a company’s future, they will buy its stocks. The uncertainty of the coronavirus sparked fears of an economic crisis, and many traders decided that investment during the pandemic was too risky.

In a March 2020 survey, over ** percent of adults reported that they were less likely to invest in the stock market if coronavirus spread to their community. Only ten percent of respondents said they were more likely to invest if that occurred.

As of March 2020, 64 percent of consumers in the United States didn't expect that the coronavirus pandemic would change the amount of money that they typically spent on American goods. However, almost a quarter (24 percent) expected that they would spend more on goods made in the USA.

The United States responds to the virus spreading In an attempt to slow the spread of the virus, many states have now begun to temporarily close schools, bars, restaurants, and movie theaters, ban large public gatherings, and encourage workers to work from home. As a growing amount of people feel increasing concern, behavior seems to be changing. People are less likely to go to public spaces such as shopping malls, and are spending more at wholesale club retailers.

Potential effects of COVID-19 Social and economic impacts are already felt by many as day-to-day life slows to a stop in numerous places around the world during work-from-home initiatives and quarantines. International trade, international travel, and the global economy have been struck by flight cancellations, postponement of public events, and falling stocks. Individuals are increasingly fearful that the outbreak will personally affect their financial stability.

For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

As a result of the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in Spain, the central government decided to ban all direct flights from Italy on March 10th, coming into force as of March 11th, 2020. This new effort to contain the transmission of this disease affected the main airports with direct flight connections with Italy, with Barcelona-El Prat as the most stricken by this decision with almost half a million seats affected between March 1st to April 30th, 2020. On the other hand, Madrid was the Spanish autonomous community that was most affected by the spread of the coronavirus during this period, with over five thousand people infected as of March 19, 2020. The impact of the outbreak of this disease was such that the global stock markets were affected. The Spanish IBEX-35 was no exception to that, decreasing by 2500 stock market points during the first days of March.

In 2025, ** percent of adults in the United States invested in the stock market. This figure has remained steady over the last few years and is still below the levels before the Great Recession, when it peaked in 2007 at ** percent. What is the stock market? The stock market can be defined as a group of stock exchanges where investors can buy shares in a publicly traded company. In more recent years, it is estimated an increasing number of Americans are using neobrokers, making stock trading more accessible to investors. Other investments A significant number of people think stocks and bonds are the safest investments, while others point to real estate, gold, bonds, or a savings account. Since witnessing the significant one-day losses in the stock market during the financial crisis, many investors were turning towards these alternatives in hopes for more stability, particularly for investments with longer maturities. This could explain the decrease in this statistic since 2007. Nevertheless, some speculators enjoy chasing the short-run fluctuations, and others see value in choosing particular stocks.

The value of the DJIA index amounted to ****** at the end of June 2025, up from ********* at the end of March 2020. Global panic about the coronavirus epidemic caused the drop in March 2020, which was the worst drop since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Dow Jones Industrial Average index – additional information The Dow Jones Industrial Average index is a price-weighted average of 30 of the largest American publicly traded companies on New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, and includes companies like Goldman Sachs, IBM and Walt Disney. This index is considered to be a barometer of the state of the American economy. DJIA index was created in 1986 by Charles Dow. Along with the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500 indices, it is amongst the most well-known and used stock indexes in the world. The year that the 2018 financial crisis unfolded was one of the worst years of the Dow. It was also in 2008 that some of the largest ever recorded losses of the Dow Jones Index based on single-day points were registered. On September 29, 2008, for instance, the Dow had a loss of ****** points, one of the largest single-day losses of all times. The best years in the history of the index still are 1915, when the index value increased by ***** percent in one year, and 1933, year when the index registered a growth of ***** percent.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African Centralized Chronic Medicines Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD) programme, adapted to include extended 12-month antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescriptions, 3-months ART refills and earlier eligibility criteria at 6-months after ART initiation. We aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in implementing these adaptations, and to understand the overall impact of COVID-19 on CCMDD. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with HCWs in eThekwini District clinics, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and analysed thematically. Between 18 February and 13 December 2022, we conducted 21 interviews with nurses, doctors, pharmacists, clinic managers and a community pick-up-point staff member. There were mixed perceptions about COVID-19 adaptations to CCMDD. HCWs reported that COVID-19 adaptations to CCMDD helped keep clients away from clinics, reducing exposure to COVID-19, minimizing queues, alleviating client frustration, and easing workload, which enabled more focused attention on clients with greater needs. Clients reportedly preferred 12-month prescriptions as it gave them independence. However, HCWs were concerned about clients’ ART adherence, potential to miss out on clinical input, and difficulties aligning annual viral load results, during the 12 months without clinic attendance. The extended eligibility and multi-month dispensing were acceptable to HCWs, but concerns were expressed about non-adherence and stock shortages. Challenges, including staff shortages due to sickness, increased workload, inadequate training, HCWs’ distrust in clients’ ability to manage their health autonomously, and staff’s limited involvement in decisions about the adaptations, impacted on their implementation. While HCWs reported benefits of 12-month prescribing, extended eligibility and multi-month dispensing in CCMDD, long-term implementation would require addressing concerns about impacts on adherence, alignment of annual viral loads and timely follow up. Prioritizing HCW input in decision-making processes and enhancing provider-client interactions will be pivotal in ensuring the effectiveness of CCMDD adaptations.