Search

COVID-19 can lead to severe outcomes in children (1). Vaccination decreases risk for COVID-19 illness, severe disease, and death (2). On December 13, 2020, CDC recommended COVID-19 vaccination for persons aged ≥16 years, with expansion on May 12, 2021, to children and adolescents (children) aged 12-15 years, and on November 2, 2021, to children aged 5-11 years (3). As of March 8, 2023, COVID-19 vaccination coverage among school-aged children remained low nationwide, with 61.7% of children aged 12-17 years and approximately one third (32.7%) of those aged 5-11 years having completed the primary series (3). Intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination coverage vary by demographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity and socioeconomic status (4-6). Seattle Public Schools (SPS) implemented a program to increase COVID-19 vaccination coverage during the 2021-22 school year, focusing on children aged 5-11 years during November 2021-June 2022, with an added focus on populations with low vaccine coverage during January 2022-June 2022. † The program included strategic messaging, school-located vaccination clinics, and school-led community engagement. Vaccination data from the Washington State Immunization Information System (WAIIS) were analyzed to examine disparities in COVID-19 vaccination by demographic and school characteristics and trends over time. In December 2021, 56.5% of all SPS students, 33.7% of children aged 5-11 years, and 81.3% of children aged 12-18 years had completed a COVID-19 primary vaccination series. By June 2022, overall series completion had increased to 80.3% and was 74.0% and 86.6% among children aged 5-11 years and 12-18 years, respectively. School-led vaccination programs can leverage community partnerships and relationships with families to improve COVID-19 vaccine access and coverage., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Janet A. Englund reports institutional support from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Merck; consulting fees from Pfizer, Moderna, Abbvie, Merck, and AstraZeneca; and travel support to attend the 2022 European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases meeting from AstraZeneca. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objective: Spanish-monolingual Latinos account for 13% of U.S. residents and experience multiple barriers to effective health communication. Information intermediaries/proxies mediate between the linguistically isolated and health care providers. This study characterizes the information needs of surrogate callers and their subjects to a U.S.-based Spanish-language radio health program., Method: Content analysis of calls placed (N = 281 calls)., Results: Women made 70% of calls; 39.1% of calls were on behalf of children, 11.0% on behalf of parents/older adults, and 18.5% on behalf of spouses/siblings/contemporary adults. Most common topics were disease symptoms/conditions (19.6%), cancer (13.9%), and reproduction/sexuality (12.9%). Calls for children were more likely than those for parents/other adults to pertain to current illness symptoms or conditions; calls for parents were more likely to be about cancer/chronic conditions. Half of all calls sought clarification about a previous medical encounter., Conclusion: Information-seeking surrogates may represent a useful strategy for linguistic minorities to overcome structural and individual barriers to health information access. Results suggest that Latinos are willing to seek information on behalf of friends and family and highlight the need for improved, culturally and linguistically appropriate health communication sources., Practice Implications: Leveraging Latinos' natural familial social networks/willingness to share information may improve dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate health information. Further implications for patient activation and doctor-patient communication are discussed., (© 2015 Society for Public Health Education.)

The US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has shifted from an emergency response to a sustainable, country-owned response. The process of transition to country ownership is already underway in the Eastern Caribbean; the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) has advised the region that PEPFAR funding is being redirected away from the Eastern Caribbean toward Caribbean countries with high disease burden to strengthen services for key populations. This article seeks to highlight and apply lessons learned from other donor transitions to support a successful transition of HIV programs in the Eastern Caribbean. Based on a rapid review of both peer-reviewed and gray literature on donor transitions to country ownership in family planning, HIV, and other areas, we identified 48 resources that addressed key steps in the transition process and determinants of readiness for transition. Analysis of the existing literature revealed 6 steps that could help ensure successful transition, including developing a clear roadmap articulated through high-level diplomacy; investing in extensive stakeholder engagement; and supporting monitoring and evaluation during and after the transition to adjust course as needed. Nine specific areas to assess a country's readiness for transition include: leadership and management capacity, political and economic factors, the policy environment, identification of alternative funding sources, integration of HIV programs into the wider health system, the institutionalization of processes, the strength of procurement and supply chain management, identification of staffing and training needs, and engagement of civil society and the private sector. In the Caribbean, key areas requiring strengthening to ensure countries in the region can maintain the gains made under PEPFAR include further engaging civil society and the private sector, building the capacity of NGOs to take on essential program functions, and maintaining donor support for targeted capacity building and long-term monitoring and evaluation efforts., (© Vogus et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

Introduction: The expansion of mobile health technologies, particularly for diabetes-related applications (apps), grew exponentially in the past decade. This study sought to examine the extent to which current mobile apps for diabetes have health literate features recommended by participants in an Institute of Medicine Roundtable and compare the health literate features by app cost (free or not)., Methods: We used diabetes-related keywords to identify diabetes-related apps for iOS devices. A random sample of 110 apps (24% of total number of apps identified) was selected for coding. The coding scheme was adapted from the discussion paper produced by participants in the Institute of Medicine Roundtable., Results: Most diabetes apps in this sample addressed diabetes management and therapeutics, and paid apps were more likely than free apps to use plain language strategies, to label links clearly, and to have at least 1 feature (a "back" button) that helps with the organization., Conclusion: Paid apps were more likely than free apps to use strategies that should be more useful and engaging for people with low health literacy. Future work can investigate ways to make free diabetes mobile apps more user-friendly and accessible.