RESUMO
Vaccination against COVID-19 is vital for achieving herd immunity, and the Government of India has adopted several strategies to achieve coverage. Vaccine hesitancy was identified as a potential obstacle in combating COVID-19. This study aimed to review the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy based on studies conducted in Indian populations. The data sources (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) were searched by following PRISMA guidelines, and the search was done in September 2022. We performed a meta-analysis through a random effect model to estimate pooled hesitancy rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 3,339 records were searched, of which 46 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion in the review. The included studies covered 65,551 respondents, 55% were female. Studies reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate of 65.7% in January-February 2021, which increased to 92.8% in May-August 2021. Likewise, the rate of vaccine hesitancy in December 2020 was 37%, dropping to 12.1% through November 2021. The estimated pooled COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 31% [95% CI: 27% - 36%, I2 = 99.3%]. Most studies highlighted that fear of the vaccine's side effects, efficacy, and safety were major barriers to vaccine acceptance. However, as the review indicates, it is important to consider and address all factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy.
RESUMO
Introduction Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) are a serious threat in many Indian states, including Kerala. Community-based decentralized planning and engagement are effective strategies that can make positive behavioral changes to control VBDs. Methods This community-based implementation research was conducted during November 2016 - October 2018 in Alappuzha municipality in Kerala, India. It was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, formative research was conducted to know the community's profile and perceptions and thus to plan and develop an appropriate intervention. Baseline data on some entomological indicators were also collected. These data were used to assess the impact of the intervention by comparing with the post-intervention data. In the second phase, an intervention through the community's engagement was implemented in selected wards. The activities included the formation of community committees and the vector control and source reduction activities with the community engagement and inter-sectoral coordination. Results The intervention resulted in a positive change among the community to engage in vector control activities. These efforts along with inter-sectoral coordination resulted in successfully implementing vector source reduction activities. In both wards, pre- and post-intervention entomological data (house index: 16.7 vs 6.0 and 64.2 vs. 8.6; container index: 24.8 vs. 12.1 and 37.7 vs. 18.1; and Breteau index: 21.3 vs. 7.3 and 47.7 vs. 8.6) revealed a considerable vector source reduction. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest considering and including community engagement in public health policy as the main thrust to control VBDs.