Search

Issue Addressed Methods Results Conclusions So What? Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is crucial for preventing and managing infectious diseases. In the context of the post‐coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic landscape, this paper examines the perceptions of immunisation implementers and policymakers to uncover the challenges and evidence gaps in routine immunisation efforts.We conducted an online two‐round modified Delphi survey with immunisation experts, senior public servants, policymakers, policy advisory groups, and representatives from peak bodies from across Australia. We asked respondents to outline what they see as the greatest challenges to increasing and maintaining uptake of recommended vaccines in Australia; the most difficult aspects of their work in vaccination; the largest evidence gaps in vaccine uptake; and the kinds of social and behavioural research they would like to see prioritised.The two most important challenges for increasing and maintaining vaccine uptake were effectively communicating the benefits of vaccines to parents and the public and ensuring accessible and affordable vaccination services. Participants strongly agreed that ‘communication about the importance of vaccination’ was the most difficult aspect of their work. Consistently important was the need to better engage specific population groups, such as culturally and linguistically diverse people, pregnant people, at risk cohorts, and health care providers. Social and behavioural research about ‘how to effectively address hesitancy’ was ranked highly among participants.Findings from this project help provide an understanding of the behavioural, social, ethical, and policy knowledge needs for immunisation policy and implementation in Australia. To respond to vaccine challenges, increase coverage and build public trust in vaccination, policymakers and governments should incorporate social research into vaccination programmes.Australia is preparing to launch a Centre for Disease Control. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating social, behavioural, ethical, and policy research into the fabric of this new enterprise. It underlines the need to capacity‐build a workforce able to deliver high‐quality research in these areas, address the needs of immunisation implementers and policymakers, and achieve good outcomes for Australians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) and acute rheumatic fever (ARF) disproportionately affect individuals in low-resource settings. ARF is attributed to an immune response to Group A Streptococcus (GAS) following GAS pharyngitis and potentially GAS impetigo in which infection can be initiated by scabies infestation. The burden of ARF and RHD in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia is among the highest globally. Following recent calls to include dog management programs in ARF and RHD prevention programs, we believe it is timely to assess the evidence for this, particularly since previous recommendations excluded resources to prevent zoonotic canine scabies. While phylogenetic analyses have suggested that the Sarcoptes mite is host specific, they have differed in interpretation of the strength of their findings regarding species cross-over and the need for canine scabies control to prevent human itch. Given that there is also indication from case reports that canine scabies leads to human itch, we propose that further investigation of the potential burden of zoonotic canine scabies and intervention trials of canine scabies prevention on the incidence of impetigo are warranted. Considering the devastating impacts of ARF and RHD, evidence is required to support policy to eliminate all risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]