Barriers and facilitators to viral hepatitis testing in Uzbekistan: scoping qualitative study among key stakeholders, healthcare workers, and the general population.

INTRODUCTION: In the World Health Organization European Region, an estimated 14 million people live with a chronic hepatitis B virus infection (HBV), and 12 million are affected by a hepatitis C virus infection (HCV). Uzbekistan bears a major burden of HBV and has one of the highest HCV prevalence in the region. Following a presidential decree in May 2022, significant funds were allocated to the viral hepatitis (VH) elimination program in Uzbekistan. The program expands VH testing to reach 500,000 people annually during 2022-2025 as part of the VH elimination strategy that includes the provision of free testing and affordable treatment. Exploring the existing barriers and facilitators to VH testing is pivotal for informing these interventions. METHODS: This study uses a cross-sectional qualitative design to identify and explore the barriers and facilitators to VH testing among the general population in Uzbekistan. We collected data during October-November 2022 through semi-structured interviews with 12 key informants (KIs) and 7 focus group discussions with two target populations: the general population and healthcare workers (HCW) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. RESULTS: Following the capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior model (COM-B model) as a framework for the analysis, we identified major capability barriers to VH testing primarily linked to low health literacy and limited knowledge about VH types, symptoms, transmission, testing and treatment. Physical opportunity barriers included the time and financial costs associated with testing, diagnostics, and treatment. Sociocultural opportunity barriers involved anticipated negative reactions and stigmatization, particularly affecting women. Motivational barriers included a reluctance to be tested when asymptomatic and a general fear of receiving positive test results. The involvement of healthcare workers in promoting VH awareness and motivating the general population emerged as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-pronged approach is recommended to achieve VH testing goals among the general population, focusing on raising awareness and health literacy and creating an enabling environment that ensures easy accessibility and minimizing VH testing-associated costs.

Listening to the Voices of Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study Providing In-Depth Insights Into Ethical and Individual Challenges.

In their daily practice, health care workers (HCWs) experience the effects of tensions between professional ethos and work realities, which can lead to ethical dilemmas. We aim to explore the ethical dilemmas that affected HCWs in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand these in the context of the German health system. Between April and December 2022, we interviewed HCWs from various levels of care and key informants responsible for decisions related to HCWs in Germany. Three themes were identified in the data analyzed from 78 participants. The first highlighted the potency of pre-existing health system problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second captured the ethical dilemmas that were described as having arisen due to the tension between professional ethos and structural constraints. The third included factors related to increasing or diminishing the implications of ethical dilemmas. A lack of opportunities for HCWs to participate in political and managerial decisions was suggested to result in policies that do not meet the needs of HCWs and patients. Positive interpersonal interactions were described as helpful when coping with dilemmatic decision-making situations. In order to avoid negative consequences caused by unresolved ethical dilemmas, including moral distress, among HCWs, staff shortages and decision-making in the German health system urgently need to be addressed. HCWs' working conditions regularly evoke ethical dilemmas, particularly during public health emergencies. Together with HCWs, decision-makers must develop new models for working in health care settings that are in line with HCWs' professional ethos.

Caregiver acceptance of malaria vaccination for children under 5 years of age and associated factors: cross-sectional household survey, Guinea and Sierra Leone, 2022.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a leading cause of death and reduced life span in Guinea and Sierra Leone, where plans for rolling out the malaria vaccine for children are being made. There is little evidence about caregiver acceptance rates to guide roll-out policies. To inform future vaccine implementation planning, this analysis aimed to assess potential malaria vaccine acceptance by caregivers and identify factors associated with acceptance in Guinea and Sierra Leone. METHODS: A cross-sectional household survey using lot quality assurance sampling was conducted in three regions per country between May 2022 and August 2022. The first survey respondent in each household provided sociodemographic information. A household member responsible for childcare shared their likelihood of accepting a malaria vaccine for their children under 5 years and details about children's health. The prevalence of caregiver vaccine acceptance was calculated and associated factors were explored using multivariable logistic regression modelling calculating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Caregivers in 76% of 702 sampled households in Guinea and 81% of 575 households in Sierra Leone were accepting of a potential vaccine for their children. In both countries, acceptance was lower in remote areas than in urban areas (Guinea: aOR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.50], Sierra Leone: 0.17 [0.06-0.47]). In Guinea, acceptance was lower among caregivers living in the richest households compared to the poorest households (0.10 [0.04-0.24]), among those whose children were tested for malaria when febrile (0.54 [0.34-0.85]) and in households adopting more preventative measures against malaria (0.39 [0.25-0.62]). Better knowledge of the cause of malaria infection was associated with increased acceptance (3.46 [1.01-11.87]). In Sierra Leone, vaccine acceptance was higher among caregivers living in households where the first respondent had higher levels of education as compared to lower levels (2.32 [1.05-5.11]). CONCLUSION: In both countries, malaria vaccine acceptance seems promising for future vaccine roll-out programmes. Policy makers might consider regional differences, sociodemographic factors, and levels of knowledge about malaria for optimization of implementation strategies. Raising awareness about the benefits of comprehensive malaria control efforts, including vaccination and other preventive measures, requires attention in upcoming campaigns.

A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study.

BACKGROUND: During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people's perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. RESULTS: This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people's assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). CONCLUSION: We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

Capacity-building during public health emergencies: perceived usefulness and cost savings of an online training on SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) diagnostics in low- and middle-income settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Laboratory Support Unit (ZIG4) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German National Public Health Institute, developed and delivered an online training on SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics to 17 partner countries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This article analyses the usefulness and cost savings of this training. Methods: The authors performed a concurrent mixed-methodology study based on key informant interviews, interviewer-administered questionnaires, and document reviews. Economic costs were estimated from the perspective of RKI. Results: Responding participants indicated that the course provided good and comprehensive information on up-to-date scientific knowledge and laboratory practice in PCR diagnostics. Respondents appreciated how the technical content of the training enhanced their ability to apply diagnostic methods in their daily work. Interviewees highlighted that the fast implementation and the low threshold of attending an online training had allowed them to quickly build skills that were crucial during, and beyond, the COVID-19 crisis. The total estimated cost of the online SARS-CoV-2 qPCR training was 61,644 euros. The total estimated cost of the equivalent face-to-face training was estimated at 267,592 euros. Programme weaknesses identified included the top-down approaches taken, lack of interactive components and opportunities to directly engage with other course participants and with teachers. Conclusions: An online training was developed and implemented to support RKI partner countries in SARS-CoV-2 qPCR diagnostics during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby strengthening pandemic response and health system resilience. The training incurred in important cost savings compared to the equivalent face-to-face training. Post-pandemic studies could usefully build on these research findings and explore ways to enhance end user involvement and improve interactive features to build stronger communities of learners and facilitate exchange of information and mutual learning.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts.

Background: Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE). Methods: To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results. Results: We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies. Conclusion: We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.