Search

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of COVID-19. However, data on HCWs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward COVID-19 are limited. Between September and November 2020, we conducted a questionnaire-based COVID-19 KAP survey among HCWs at three hospitals in Uganda. We used Bloom’s cut-off of ≥80% to determine sufficient knowledge, good attitude, and good practice, and multivariate Poisson regression with robust variance for statistical analysis. Of 717 HCWs invited to participate, 657 (91.6%) agreed and were enrolled. The mean age (standard deviation) of enrollees was 33.2 (10.2) years, most were clinical HCWs (64.7%) and had advanced secondary school/other higher-level education (57.8%). Overall, 83.9% had sufficient knowledge, 78.4% had a positive attitude, and 37.0% had good practices toward COVID-19. Factors associated with KAP were: Knowledge: being a clinical HCW (aRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02–1.23) and previous participation in health research (aRR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04–1.17), Attitude: age &gt, 35 years (aRR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79–0.98), Practice: being a clinical HCW (aRR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.41–2.59). HCWs in Uganda have good knowledge and positive attitude but poor practices towards COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 KAP between clinical and non-clinical HCWs could affect uptake of COVID-19 interventions including vaccination.

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and may therefore be a suitable population for COVID-19 vaccine trials. We conducted a survey to evaluate willingness-to-participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials in a population of HCWs at three hospitals in Uganda. Methods The survey was conducted between September and November 2020. Using a standardised questionnaire, data were collected on socio-demographics, previous participation in health research, COVID-19 information sources, underlying health conditions, and willingness-to-participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials. Data were analysed descriptively and a binomial generalised linear model with a log link function used to investigate factors associated with unwillingness to participate. Results 657 HCWs (female, 63%) were enrolled with a mean age of 33 years (Standard Deviation, 10). Overall willingness-to-participate was 70.2%. Key motivating factors for participation were: hope of being protected against COVID-19 (81.1%), altruism (73.3%), and the opportunity to get health care (26.0%). Selected hypothetical trial attributes reduced willingness-to-participate as follows: weekly-quarterly study visits over a 12-month period (70.2%-63.2%, P = 0.026); provision of approximately 50ml of blood at each study visit (70.2%-63.2%, P = 0.026); risk of mild-moderate local adverse reactions (70.2%-60.3%, PPPP = 0.002); Male, 82.5%-71.5% (P = 0.003)]. Collectively, these attributes reduced willingness-to-participate from [70.2%-42.2% (PPP.001) in women]. Among individuals that were unwilling to participate, the commonest barriers were concerns over vaccine safety (54.6%) and fear of catching SARS-CoV-2 (31.6%). Unwillingness to participate was associated with being female (aRR 1.97, CI 1.46–2.67, PP = 0.026). Conclusions Willingness-to-participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials among HCWs in Uganda is high but may be affected by vaccine trial requirements and concerns about the safety of candidate vaccines.

Background The 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa is the worst ever caused by Ebolaviruses with over 28,000 human cases and 11,325 deaths. The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the epidemic a public health crisis that required accelerated development of novel interventions including vaccines. The Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Uganda Research Unit (MRC/UVRI & LSHTM Uganda Research Unit) was among the African research sites that implemented the VAC52150EBL1004 Ebola vaccine trial. Objective We report on the strategies utilised by the Unit and sponsor in ensuring expedited clinical trial approval and accelerated conduct. Methods Janssen Vaccines and Prevention B.V. conducted a phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of heterologous two-dose vaccination regimens using Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, in healthy adults in Africa. Accelerated implementation strategies are hereby presented. Results Strategies included: holding the African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (AVAREF) joint review meeting; expedited review by institutional ethics and country-specific regulatory bodies; competitive recruitment between sites; electronic data capture (EDC); frequent study monitoring schedule; involvement of a community advisory board (CAB); and utilization of a ‘phased’ study information-sharing approach in community engagement and participant recruitment. These strategies enabled the site to acquire approvals within 2 months and enrol 47 participants within a spurn of five. The same milestone is usually acquired in at least 1 year without accelerated implementation. Conclusion The use of well-thought strategies by sponsors and research sites can enable the implementation of accelerated research. We recommend the use of similar strategies in other settings.

BackgroundThere remains an urgent need for a prophylactic HIV vaccine to control generalised epidemics. PrEP has demonstrated effectiveness of 86% and is recommended by WHO; uptake is generally high, but retention is disappointing in some settings. The EDCTP2 project PrEPVacc will assess the efficacy of two combination prophylactic vaccine regimens (DNA, MVA and Env protein/adjuvant) each compared to placebo and the proportion of infections averted by F/TAF in comparison to TDF/FTC. A Registration Cohort, recruiting HIV negative volunteers at risk of HIV will precede the trial.MethodsThe PrEPVacc partnership agreed that 70% vaccine efficacy had public health relevance. The trial uses nstage software for multi-arm, multi-stage designs (MAMS) and the averted infections ratio (AIR) methodology with participants randomised (i) 1:1:1 to active product or placebo (ii) 1:1 to TDF/FTC : F/TAF until week 26 (presumed peak immunogenicity). Access to PrEP in the Registration Cohort and after week 26 will be standard of care. HIV seroconversions occurring between weeks 0–26 will inform the PrEP analysis, incorporating HIV incidence amongst those who do not take up PrEP locally in the Registration Cohort. Seroconversions after week 26 will inform vaccine analyses.ResultsUp to 556 participants per group affords 92% power to detect vaccine efficacy of 70% at the final analysis, assuming incidence of 4/100-person years and 10% loss with 81% and 97% power to conclude that F/TAF can avert half or more of the infections prevented by TDF/FTC if effectiveness of TDF/FTC is 70% and 80%, respectively.ConclusionPrEPVacc adopts a pragmatic approach to uncertainties around HIV incidence in settings where PrEP is increasingly available. This innovative adaptive trial design uses validated software to determine vaccine efficacy and a novel methodology to evaluate a new PrEP agent, overcoming the challenge of demonstrating non-inferiority when adherence to TDF/FTC is high and the number of outcome events very low.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to estimate the annual costs of information, education, and communication (IEC), both community- and school-based; strengthened public and private sexually transmitted infections treatment; condom social marketing (CSM); and voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) implemented in Masaka, Uganda, over 4 years, and to explore how unit costs change with varying population use/uptake. STUDY: Total economic provider's costs and intervention outputs were collected annually to estimate annual unit costs between 1996 and 1999. RESULTS: In early intervention years, uptake of all activities grew dramatically and continued to grow for public STI treatment, CSM, and VCT. Attendance at IEC performances started to drop in year 4. Unit costs dropped rapidly with increasing uptake of and participation in interventions. CONCLUSIONS: When implementing long-term community-based interventions, it is important to take into account that it takes time for communities to scale up their participation, since this can lead to large variations in unit costs.