Search

Background: There is limited evidence on COVID-19 vaccination uptake among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and health care workers (HCWs), with the current evidence concentrated in high-income countries. There is also limited documentation in the published literature regarding the feasibility and lessons from implementing targeted vaccination strategies to reach PLHIV and HCWs in low- and middle-income countries., Program Development, Piloting, and Implementation: We designed and implemented multifaceted strategies to scale up targeted COVID-19 vaccination among PLHIV and HCWs in 11 administrative regions on the mainland of Tanzania plus Zanzibar. An initial 6-week intensification strategy was implemented using a diverse partnership model comprising key stakeholders at the national- and subnational levels. A layered package of strategies included expanding the number of certified vaccinators, creating vaccination points within HIV clinics, engaging HCWs to address their concerns, and building the capacity of HCWs as "champions" to promote and facilitate vaccination. We then closely monitored COVID-19 vaccination uptake in 562 high-volume HIV clinics. Between September 2021 and September 2022, the proportion of fully vaccinated adult PLHIV increased from <1% to 97% and fully vaccinated HCWs increased from 23% to 80%., Lessons and Implications: Our intra-action review highlighted the importance of leveraging a strong foundation of existing partnerships and platforms, integrating COVID-19 vaccination points within HIV clinics, and refining strategies to increase vaccination demand while ensuring continuity of vaccine supply to meet the increased demand. Lessons from Tanzania can inform targeted vaccination of vulnerable groups in future health emergencies., (© Jalloh et al.)

The global COVID-19 response focused heavily on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) until vaccines became available. Even where vaccination coverage is low, over time governments have become increasingly reluctant to use NPIs. Inequities in vaccine and treatment accessibility and coverage, differences in vaccine effectiveness, waning immunity, and immune-escape variants of concern of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinforce the long-term need for mitigation. Initially, the concept of NPIs, and mitigation more broadly, was focused on prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission; however, mitigation can and has done more than prevent transmission. It has been used to address the clinical dimensions of the pandemic as well. The authors propose an expanded conceptualization of mitigation that encompasses a continuum of community and clinical mitigation measures that can help reduce infection, illness, and death from COVID-19. It can further help governments balance these efforts and address the disruptions in essential health services, increased violence, adverse mental health outcomes, and orphanhood precipitated by the pandemic and by NPIs themselves. The COVID-19 pandemic response revealed the benefits of a holistic and layered mitigation approach to public health emergencies from the outset. Lessons learned can inform the next phases of the current pandemic response and planning for future public health emergencies.

Tanzania reported its first COVID-19 case on 16 March 2020. We conducted event-based surveillance of COVID-19 suspect cases among pharmacy clients presenting with respiratory symptoms and influenza-like illness to increase early and rapid detection of COVID-19 cases and mitigate transmission. We conveniently sampled 103 pharmacies from Dar es Salaam, the epicentre for the COVID-19 pandemic in Tanzania at the time. Between 23 April 2020 and 18 May 2020, 67% of the pharmacies (69/103) reported an observed increase in the number of clients presenting with respiratory symptoms and influenza-like illness compared with the 1 month before the COVID-19 outbreak. In the 1-month surveillance period, the participating pharmacies recorded 75 alerts of COVID-19 suspect cases and referred all suspected COVID-19 cases to rapid response teams for additional symptomatic screening and SARS-CoV-2 testing. A key implementation challenge was that some clients identified as COVID-19 suspected cases were hesitant to provide follow-up information for linkage to rapid response teams. Addressing concerns among drug dispensers in the participating pharmacies and informing them of the benefits of the surveillance activity were important implementation components. Our approach demonstrates the overall feasibility of rapidly implementing an event-based surveillance system for an emerging health threat through an existing network of pharmacies within the community. The approach and tools used in this surveillance activity could be adapted in similar settings to detect and generate alerts of disease outbreaks in the community that other surveillance systems may otherwise miss., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: New data on COVID-19 may influence the stringency of containment policies, but these potential effect are not understood. We aimed to understand the associations of new COVID-19 cases and deaths with policy stringency globally and regionally., Methods: We modelled the marginal effects of new COVID-19 cases and deaths on policy stringency (scored 0-100) in 175 countries and territories, adjusting for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and health expenditure (% of GDP), and public expenditure on health. The time periods examined were March to August 2020, September 2020 to February 2021, and March to August 2021., Results: Policy response to new cases and deaths was faster and more stringent early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March to August 2020) compared to subsequent periods. New deaths were more strongly associated with stringent policies than new cases. In an average week, one new death per 100 000 people was associated with a stringency increase of 2.1 units in the March to August 2020 period, 1.3 units in the September 2020 to February 2021 period, and 0.7 units in the March to August 2021 period. New deaths in Africa and the Western Pacific were associated with more stringency than in other regions. Higher health expenditure as a percentage of GDP was associated with less stringent policies. Similarly, higher public expenditure on health by governments was mostly associated with less stringency across all three periods. GDP per capita did not have consistent patterns of associations with stringency., Conclusions: The stringency of COVID-19 policies was more strongly associated with new deaths than new cases. Our findings demonstrate the need for enhanced mortality surveillance to ensure policy alignment during health emergencies. Countries that invest less in health or have a lower public expenditure on health may be inclined to enact more stringent policies. This new empirical understanding of COVID-19 policy drivers can help public health officials anticipate and shape policy responses in future health emergencies., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: Noel T Brewer is a paid consultant of Merck, World Health Organization, and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for advising on vaccination strategy, vaccination beliefs, and vaccination uptake., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Since 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) member states have been annually reporting vaccine hesitancy reasons, using the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF). The Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix (VHM), developed by a WHO strategic advisory group of experts, can serve as an important tool to categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF. We aimed to describe the reasons for vaccine hesitancy reported globally from 2014 to 2017 to ascertain trends over time and understand the comparability of using the VHM to classify hesitancy reasons from 2014 to 2016 based on previously published literature. We conducted a quantitative content analysis to code and categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF from 2014 to 2017. Vaccine hesitancy trends were consistent from 2014 to 2017, where vaccine hesitancy reasons were mainly related to "individual and group level influences" (59%) followed by "contextual influences" (25%), and "vaccine- or vaccination-specific issues" (16%). Comparability of our approach to categorize vaccine hesitancy to the previously published JRF data showed that results were mostly but not entirely consistent. Major differences in categorizing vaccine hesitancy were noted between two specific reasons - "experience with past vaccination" (under "individual and group influences") and "risk/benefit- scientific evidence" (under "vaccine and vaccination-specific issues"); this was usually due to lack of clear definitions in some sub-categories and generic responses reported in the JRF. The JRF hesitancy module may benefit from modifications to improve the data quality. Understanding global vaccine hesitancy is crucial and JRF can serve as an important tool, especially with the potential introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Social and behavioural factors are critical to the emergence, spread and containment of human disease, and are key determinants of the course, duration and outcomes of disease outbreaks. Recent epidemics of Ebola in West Africa and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally have reinforced the importance of developing infectious disease models that better integrate social and behavioural dynamics and theories. Meanwhile, the growth in capacity, coordination and prioritization of social science research and of risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) practice within the current pandemic response provides an opportunity for collaboration among epidemiological modellers, social scientists and RCCE practitioners towards a mutually beneficial research and practice agenda. Here, we provide a review of the current modelling methodologies and describe the challenges and opportunities for integrating them with social science research and RCCE practice. Finally, we set out an agenda for advancing transdisciplinary collaboration for integrated disease modelling and for more robust policy and practice for reducing disease transmission., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

Human behaviour will continue to play an important role as the world grapples with public health threats. In this paper, we draw from the emerging evidence on behaviour adoption during diverse public health emergencies to develop a framework that contextualises behaviour adoption vis-à-vis a combination of top-down, intermediary and bottom-up approaches. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we operationalise the contextual framework to demonstrate how these three approaches differ in terms of their implementation, underlying drivers of action, enforcement, reach and uptake. We illustrate how blended strategies that include all three approaches can help accelerate and sustain protective behaviours that will remain important even when safe and effective vaccines become more widely available. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares to respond to (re)emerging public health threats, our contextual framework can inform the design, implementation, tracking and evaluation of comprehensive public health and social measures during health emergencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)