The elimination of hepatitis D as a public health problem: Needs and challenges.

Infection with hepatitis D virus leads to liver disease and cancer most rapidly of all hepatitis viruses. However, knowledge about hepatitis D remains poor and the burden and impact are underestimated, even though some 12-15 million people mainly in low- and middle-income countries may be affected. Its epidemiology is changing, with increasing migration leading to increased risks of infection and disease. A recent Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board meeting reviewed the current epidemiological status, improvements in diagnostic testing, advances in the development of novel antiviral agents in phase III trials and the need for a greater public health response, such as new guidelines and recommended testing of all people newly identified as infected with hepatitis B virus for hepatitis D virus infection. It identified issues and needs for attention with regard to prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

Hepatitis B Vaccines.

Hepatitis B is caused by the hepatitis B virus (HBV), which infects the liver and may lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. HBV represents a worldwide public health problem, causing major morbidity and mortality. Affordable, safe, and effective, hepatitis B vaccines are the best tools we have to control and prevent hepatitis B. In 2019, coverage of 3 doses of the hepatitis B vaccine reached 85% worldwide compared to around 30% in 2000. The effective implementation of hepatitis B vaccination programs has resulted in a substantial decrease in the HBV carrier rate and hepatitis B-related morbidity and mortality. This article summarizes the great triumphs of the hepatitis B vaccine, the first anticancer and virus-like-particle-based vaccine. In addition, existing unresolved issues and future perspectives on hepatitis B vaccination required for global prevention of HBV infection are discussed.

Eliminating viral hepatitis C in Belgium: the micro-elimination approach.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus is one of the leading causes of chronic liver disease and liver-related deaths worldwide. The estimated prevalence of chronic hepatitis C viral infection among the general Belgian population was 0.57% (n = 64,000) in 2015. Although Belgium has had a 'Hepatitis C Plan' since 2014, elimination efforts are unclear. This study employs the best available data and modelling estimates to define the burden of hepatitis C viral infection among key subgroups in Belgium, identify information gaps and propose potential approaches to screening, linkage to care and treatment, and cure. METHODS: We examined the peer-reviewed and grey literature since 2012 for data on the prevalence of hepatitis C viral infection in Belgium in key subgroups identified by national experts and in the literature. Ultimately, this research is primarily based on data provided by the key stakeholders themselves due to a lack of reliable data in the literature. Based on this, we modelled the treatment rates required to reach elimination of hepatitis C in several subgroups. RESULTS: Eleven potential subgroups were identified. There were no data available for two subgroups: generational cohorts and men who have sex with men. In six subgroups, fewer than 3000 people were reported or estimated to have hepatitis C infection. Migrants and people who inject drugs were the most affected subgroups, and children were the least affected subgroup. Only two subgroups are on target to achieve elimination by 2030: patients living with haemophilia and transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Removing Belgian treatment reimbursement restrictions in January 2019 was a big step towards eliminating HCV. In addition, increasing surveillance, including with a national registry, treatment prescription by other health-care providers and availability of treatment in local pharmacies are central to improving the current situation and getting on track to reach the 2030 WHO hepatitis C elimination targets in Belgium.

Primary Healthcare Providers' Views on Periodic COVID-19 Booster Vaccination for Themselves and Their Patients: A 2023 Nationwide Survey in Belgium.

New COVID-19 strains and waning vaccine effectiveness prompted initiatives for booster vaccination. In Belgium, healthcare providers (HCPs) received a second booster in July 2022, with eligible individuals receiving a third in autumn. Primary HCPs (PHCPs) play a crucial role in healthcare organization and patient communication. This study, conducted in February-March 2023, surveyed 1900 Belgian PHCPs to assess their views on periodic COVID-19 boosters for themselves and their patients. The survey included questions on sociodemographic information, willingness to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, reasons for acceptance or refusal, confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy, and views on booster recommendations. Overall, 86% of participants were willing to receive periodic COVID-19 boosters, motivated by self-protection, patient well-being, and the uninterrupted delivery of healthcare services. Factors influencing booster refusal included not being a general practitioner (GP) or GP trainee, working in Wallonia or Brussels, and lacking vaccine confidence. Although 243 participants would not take boosters periodically, only 74 would not recommend it. Regarding administration, 59% supported pharmacist involvement in COVID-19 vaccination. Further qualitative analysis of 290 PHCPs' responses revealed varying recommendations, including specific roles like nurses, organizational structures, and collaborative approaches. This study highlights the need to address vaccine confidence, regional disparities, and PHCP roles in booster implementation.

The Vaccine Training Barometer: Assessing healthcare providers' confidence to answer vaccine-related questions and their training needs.

Healthcare providers (HCP) are seen by the public as the most trustworthy source of information about vaccination. While HCPs could be a valuable partner to increase vaccine confidence in general, it is not clear whether they feel confident themselves to address questions concerning vaccination. In the context of the EU Joint Action on Vaccination (EU-JAV), the Vaccine Training Barometer, an online survey tool, was developed to assess how frequently HCPs receive questions about vaccination, how confident they feel to answer these questions, and to what extent they are willing to follow extra training. After a pilot test in Flanders, Belgium, the Barometer was launched and completed by 833 HCPs in Flanders and 291 HCPs in the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Navarre and Valencian Community from November 2020 until January 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, just before and during the start of the first COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. In both countries, HCPs frequently received questions about vaccination (mostly on a daily or weekly basis), and about two thirds of them indicated that the frequency of questions had increased during the three months prior to completing the survey. Most questions were about the side effects and safety of vaccines. In both countries, a considerable proportion of HCPs did not feel confident to answer vaccine-related questions (31.5% felt confident in Flanders, 21.6% in Spain). A large proportion of HCPs received questions in the last three months before the survey that they could not answer (52.4% of respondents in Flemish sample, 41.5% in Spanish sample). Only 11.4% (Flanders) and 11.3% (Spain) of the respondents felt they gained sufficient knowledge through their standard education to be able to answer questions about vaccination. Almost all respondents were willing to follow extra training on vaccination (Flanders: 95.4%, Spain: 96.6%). The Vaccine Training Barometer is thus a useful tool to monitor HCPs' confidence to answer questions about vaccination and to capture their training needs.

Overview of adult immunization in Italy: Successes, lessons learned and the way forward.

The exchange of knowledge and best practices in adult immunization are essential to improve vaccination strategies across the European region. Italy has made groundbreaking progress in the field, being one of the first countries to propose a life-course vaccination schedule, broadening the traditional focus on childhood immunization to include adults. All vaccines included in Italy's vaccination schedule are free of charge. Moreover, the country's National Immunization Plan sets clear coverage targets, immunization priorities, and actions to reduce disparities. However, the fragmentation of its National Health System following the constitutional reform of 2001 has led to an increased complexity and regional inequalities regarding immunization. Other challenges the country faces include growing vaccine hesitancy, data gaps and underserved populations. This review describes Italy's adult immunization system, from policy to implementation. The successes, challenges and lessons learned were shared during the first Adult Immunization Board country meeting in Italy, where local experts, healthcare providers, public health representatives, and policymakers engaged in collaborative discussions and shared insights through case studies and presentations (December 2023). These insights are reviewed and discussed in this manuscript.

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and social media on the behaviour of pregnant and lactating women towards vaccination: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women, foetuses and infants are at risk of infectious disease-related complications. Maternal vaccination is a strategy developed to better protect pregnant women and their offspring against infectious disease-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccines against influenza, pertussis and recently also COVID-19 are widely recommended for pregnant women. Yet, there is still a significant amount of hesitation towards maternal vaccination policies. Furthermore, contradictory messages circulating social media impact vaccine confidence. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to reveal how COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination impacted vaccine confidence in pregnant and lactating women. Additionally, this review studied the role social media plays in creating opinions towards vaccination in these target groups. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published between 23 November 2018 and 18 July 2022 that are linked to the objectives of this review were included. Reviews, articles not focusing on the target group, abstracts, articles describing outcomes of COVID-19 infection/COVID-19 vaccination were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The PubMed database was searched to select articles. Search terms used were linked to pregnancy, lactation, vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 and social media. CHARTING METHODS: Included articles were abstracted and synthesised by one reviewer. Verification was done by a second reviewer. Disagreements were addressed through discussion between reviewers and other researchers. RESULTS: Pregnant and lactating women are generally less likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine compared with non-pregnant and non-nursing women. The main reason to refuse maternal vaccination is safety concerns. A positive link was detected between COVID-19 vaccine willingness and acceptance of other vaccines during pregnancy. The internet and social media are identified as important information sources for maternal vaccination. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy in pregnant and lactating women remains an important issue, expressing the need for effective interventions to increase vaccine confidence and coverage. The role social media plays in vaccine uptake remains unclear.

The Effects of Expressing Empathy/Autonomy Support Using a COVID-19 Vaccination Chatbot: Experimental Study in a Sample of Belgian Adults.

BACKGROUND: Chatbots are increasingly used to support COVID-19 vaccination programs. Their persuasiveness may depend on the conversation-related context. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the moderating role of the conversation quality and chatbot expertise cues in the effects of expressing empathy/autonomy support using COVID-19 vaccination chatbots. METHODS: This experiment with 196 Dutch-speaking adults living in Belgium, who engaged in a conversation with a chatbot providing vaccination information, used a 2 (empathy/autonomy support expression: present vs absent) × 2 (chatbot expertise cues: expert endorser vs layperson endorser) between-subject design. Chatbot conversation quality was assessed through actual conversation logs. Perceived user autonomy (PUA), chatbot patronage intention (CPI), and vaccination intention shift (VIS) were measured after the conversation, coded from 1 to 5 (PUA, CPI) and from -5 to 5 (VIS). RESULTS: There was a negative interaction effect of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression and conversation fallback (CF; the percentage of chatbot answers "I do not understand" in a conversation) on PUA (PROCESS macro, model 1, B=-3.358, SE 1.235, t186=2.718, P=.007). Specifically, empathy/autonomy support expression had a more negative effect on PUA when the CF was higher (conditional effect of empathy/autonomy support expression at the CF level of +1SD: B=-.405, SE 0.158, t186=2.564, P=.011; conditional effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=-0.103, SE 0.113, t186=0.914, P=.36; conditional effects nonsignificant for the -1SD level: B=0.031, SE=0.123, t186=0.252, P=.80). Moreover, an indirect effect of empathy/autonomy support expression on CPI via PUA was more negative when CF was higher (PROCESS macro, model 7, 5000 bootstrap samples, moderated mediation index=-3.676, BootSE 1.614, 95% CI -6.697 to -0.102; conditional indirect effect at the CF level of +1SD: B=-0.443, BootSE 0.202, 95% CI -0.809 to -0.005; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=-0.113, BootSE 0.124, 95% CI -0.346 to 0.137; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the -1SD level: B=0.034, BootSE 0.132, 95% CI -0.224 to 0.305). Indirect effects of empathy/autonomy support expression on VIS via PUA were marginally more negative when CF was higher. No effects of chatbot expertise cues were found. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that expressing empathy/autonomy support using a chatbot may harm its evaluation and persuasiveness when the chatbot fails to answer its users' questions. The paper adds to the literature on vaccination chatbots by exploring the conditional effects of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression. The results will guide policy makers and chatbot developers dealing with vaccination promotion in designing the way chatbots express their empathy and support for user autonomy.

Correction: Monitoring progress towards elimination of hepatitis B and C in the EU/EEA.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000841.].

Enhancing Public Health Communication Regarding Vaccine Trials: Design and Development of the Pan-European VACCELERATE Toolkit.

BACKGROUND: The pan-European VACCELERATE network aims to implement the first transnational harmonized and sustainable vaccine trial Volunteer Registry, being a single entry point for potential volunteers of large-scale vaccine trials across Europe. This work exhibits a set of harmonized vaccine trial-related educational and promotional tools for the general public, designed and disseminated by the pan-European VACCELERATE network. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aimed to design and develop a standard toolkit to increase positive attitudes and access to trustworthy information for better access and increased recruitment to vaccine trials for the public. More specifically, the produced tools are focused on inclusiveness and equity, and are targeting different population groups, including underserved ones, as potential volunteers for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry (older individuals, migrants, children, and adolescents). The promotional and educational material is aligned with the main objectives of the Volunteer Registry to increase public literacy and awareness regarding vaccine-related clinical research or trials and trial participation, including informed consent and legal issues, side effects, and frequently asked questions regarding vaccine trial design. METHODS: Tools were developed per the aims and principles of the VACCELERATE project, focusing on trial inclusiveness and equity, and are adjusted to local country-wise requirements to improve public health communication. The produced tools are selected based on the cognitive theory, inclusiveness, and equity of differently aged and underrepresented groups, and standardized material from several official trustworthy sources (eg, COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access; the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and the World Health Organization). A team of multidisciplinary specialists (infectious diseases, vaccine research, medicine, and education) edited and reviewed the subtitles and scripts of the educational videos, extended brochures, interactive cards, and puzzles. Graphic designers selected the color palette, audio settings, and dubbing for the video story-tales and implemented QR codes. RESULTS: This study presents the first set of harmonized promotional and educational materials and tools (ie, educational cards, educational and promotional videos, extended brochures, flyers, posters, and puzzles) for vaccine clinical research (eg, COVID-19 vaccines). These tools inform the public about possible benefits and disadvantages of trial participation and build confidence among participants about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the health care system. This material has been translated into several languages and is intended to be freely and easily accessible to facilitate dissemination among VACCELERATE network participant countries and the European and global scientific, industrial, and public community. CONCLUSIONS: The produced material could help fill knowledge gaps of health care personnel, providing the appropriate future patient education for vaccine trials, and tackling vaccine hesitancy and parents' concerns for potential participation of children in vaccine trials.

Advances in hepatitis immunization (A, B, E): public health policy and novel vaccine delivery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review offers an update on hepatitis A, B and E vaccines based on relevant literature published in 2011-2012. Hepatitis A and B vaccines have been commercially available for years; however, the development of the hepatitis E vaccine is still facing some challenges. RECENT FINDINGS: Current scientific evidence shows that both hepatitis A and B vaccines confer long-term protection. These data supported the updated recommendations from the WHO on hepatitis A and B vaccines and the respective booster policy. In addition, a single-dose hepatitis A vaccination programme may be an option for some intermediate endemic countries, as far as the epidemiological situation is further monitored. Recent data illustrate the co-administration of hepatitis A with infant vaccines, as well as the interchangeability with other hepatitis A vaccines. Two genetically engineered hepatitis E vaccines are currently in development, showing more than 95% protective efficacy. SUMMARY: Follow-up of vaccinated individuals confirms the long-term protection offered by the hepatitis A as well as hepatitis B vaccines. Data confirm the safety and immunogenicity profile of both vaccines, also when used in patient groups. The first data on the hepatitis E vaccine look promising, but questions on cross-protection, long-term efficacy and safety and immunogenicity in pregnant women and children less than 2 years remain unanswered.

Individual factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in between and during pandemic waves (July-December 2020).

BACKGROUND: A year after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global rollout of vaccines gives us hope of ending the pandemic. Lack of vaccine confidence, however, poses a threat to vaccination campaigns. This study aims at identifying individuals' characteristics that explain vaccine willingness in Flanders (Belgium), while also describing trends over time (July-December 2020). METHODS: The analysis included data of 10 survey waves of the Great Corona Survey, a large-scale online survey that was open to the general public and had 17,722-32,219 respondents per wave. Uni- and multivariable general additive models were fitted to associate vaccine willingness with socio-demographic and behavioral variables, while correcting for temporal and geographical variability. RESULTS: We found 84.2% of the respondents willing to be vaccinated, i.e., respondents answering that they were definitely (61.2%) or probably (23.0%) willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9.8% indicated maybe, 3.9% probably not and 2.2% definitely not. In Flanders, vaccine willingness was highest in July 2020 (90.0%), decreased over the summer period to 80.2% and started to increase again from late September, reaching 85.9% at the end of December 2020. Vaccine willingness was significantly associated with respondents' characteristics: previous survey participation, age, gender, province, educational attainment, household size, financial situation, employment sector, underlying medical conditions, mental well-being, government trust, knowing someone with severe COVID-19 symptoms and compliance with restrictive measures. These variables could explain much, but not all, variation in vaccine willingness. CONCLUSIONS: Both the timing and location of data collection influence vaccine willingness results, emphasizing that comparing data from different regions, countries and/or timepoints should be done with caution. To maximize COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccination campaigns should focus on (a combination of) subpopulations: aged 31-50, females, low educational attainment, large households, difficult financial situation, low mental well-being and labourers, unemployed and self-employed citizens.

Monitoring progress towards elimination of hepatitis B and C in the EU/EEA.

This paper presents data on selected indicators to show progress towards elimination goals and targets for hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the 31 countries of the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). A monitoring system was developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which combined newly collected data from EU/EEA countries along with relevant data from existing sources. Data for 2017 were collected from the EU/EEA countries via an online survey. All countries provided responses. In 2017, most countries reporting data had not reached prevention targets for childhood hepatitis B vaccination and for harm reduction services targeting people who inject drugs (PWID). Four of 12 countries had met the target for proportion of people living with chronic HBV diagnosed and seven of 16 met this target for hepatitis C. Data on diagnosed cases treated were lacking for hepatitis B. Of 12 countries reporting treatment data for hepatitis B, only Iceland met the target. This first collection of data across the EU/EEA highlighted major issues with data completeness and quality and in the indicators that were used, which impairs a clear overview of progress towards the elimination of hepatitis. The available data, whilst incomplete, suggest that as of 2017, the majority of the EU/EEA countries were far from meeting most of the 2020 targets, in particular those relating to harm reduction and diagnosis. It is critical to improve the data collected in order to develop more effective services for hepatitis prevention, diagnosis, and treatment that are needed in order to meet the 2030 elimination targets.

Hep-CORE: a cross-sectional study of the viral hepatitis policy environment reported by patient groups in 25 European countries in 2016 and 2017.

INTRODUCTION: The first World Health Organization (WHO) global health sector strategy on hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV and HCV) has called for the elimination of viral hepatitis as a major public health threat by 2030. This study assesses policies and programmes in support of elimination efforts as reported by patient groups in Europe. METHODS: In 2016 and 2017, hepatitis patient groups in 25 European countries participated in a cross-sectional survey about their countries' policy responses to HBV and HCV. The English-language survey addressed overall national response; public awareness/engagement; disease monitoring; prevention; testing/diagnosis; clinical assessment; and treatment. We performed a descriptive analysis of data and compared 2016 and 2017 findings. RESULTS: In 2017, 72% and 52% of the 25 European study countries were reported to not have national HBV and HCV strategies respectively. The number of respondents indicating that their governments collaborated with civil society on viral hepatitis control increased from 13 in 2016 to 18 in 2017. In both 2016 and 2017, patient groups reported that 9 countries (36%) have disease registers for HBV and 11 (44%) have disease registers for HCV. The number of countries reported to have needle and syringe exchange programmes available in all parts of the country dropped from 10 (40%) in 2016 to 8 in 2017 (32%). In both 2016 and 2017, patient groups in 5 countries (20%) reported that HCV treatment is available in non-hospital settings. From 2016 to 2017, the reported number of countries with no restrictions on access to direct-acting antivirals for HCV increased from 3 (12%) to 7 (28%), and 5 fewer countries were reported to refuse treatment to people who are currently injecting drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-led Hep-CORE study offers a unique perspective on the readiness of study countries to undertake comprehensive viral hepatitis elimination efforts. Viral hepatitis monitoring should be expanded to address policy issues more comprehensively and to incorporate civil society perspectives, as is the case with global HIV monitoring. Policy components should also be explicitly added to the WHO framework for monitoring country-level progress against viral hepatitis.

Assessment of the timely administration of the hepatitis B and BCG birth dose and the primary infant vaccination schedule in 2015-2016 in the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam.

INTRODUCTION: Vietnam is implementing hepatitis B (HBV) birth dose (BD) vaccination since 2003 but coverage remains low, especially in the Mekong River Delta. This study aimed to determine the coverage of the HBV BD vaccination, to identify socio-demographic factors influencing HBV BD, and to assess reasons for non-immunization of neonates. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2015-2016. Mothers from 526 children aged 6-11 months living in 3 provinces in the Mekong River Delta - representing respectively urban, rural and remote area - were interviewed at home and infant vaccination documents were checked. The three-stage sampling method was adapted from WHO 30-cluster sampling. Predictors of HBV BD administration were identified with multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: The overall HBV BD coverage (within 24 h) was 46.6% (compared to 44.5% for BCG) and was significantly higher in remote or rural than in urban area (OR 1.87 and 3.36, respectively), and in children whose father had a higher educational level (OR 2.76; 2.29 and 1.86, respectively, for master degree, bachelor and secondary school) as compared to a lower level. Main reasons for not having received HBV BD mentioned by parents were vaccines not offered by health care workers (53.0%), and illness of the infant (27.2%). CONCLUSION: Although Vietnam started HBV BD vaccination more than 10 years ago, the coverage and timeliness need to improve to reach WHO targets (95% within 24 h after birth). Better training and information of health care workers, and better protocols ensuring timely HBV BD could address these vaccine administration thresholds.

Innovative sources for funding of viral hepatitis prevention and treatment in low- and middle-income countries: a roundtable meeting report.

Hepatitis B is preventable and hepatitis C is treatable even if still at a high cost; most people who are infected with hepatitis B or C virus have not been screened yet and are unaware of their infections; and most countries, especially developing countries, do not have a national plan to prevent and control viral hepatitis. The advent of effective new treatments for hepatitis C has been an agent of change, allowing consideration of the feasibility of eliminating that disease and accelerating the control of viral hepatitis generally. These facts inspired the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB) to organize a meeting in London (8-9 June 2015) on innovative sources for funding of viral hepatitis prevention and treatment in low- and middle-income countries. The main focus of the meeting was to provide an overview of current health systems controlling viral hepatitis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); to identify ways to increase political commitment and financial sustainability of viral hepatitis prevention and control programmes in such countries; to identify potential funders and explore new funding mechanisms; to discuss lessons learnt about funding other disease programmes; to investigate how to convince and motivate decision-makers to fund viral hepatitis programmes in LMICs; to provide options for improving access to affordable screening and treatment of viral hepatitis in LMICs; and to list the commitments required for funding by donors, including governments, bilateral and multilateral organizations, non-traditional donors, development banks, foundations, and commercial financial institutions. To improve viral hepatitis prevention and treatment in LMICs participating hepatitis and financing experts identified the most urgent needs. Data on burden of disease must be improved. Comprehensive hepatitis policies and strategies should be drafted and implemented, and existing strategies and policies improved to increase access to treatment and prevention. Strong political will and leadership should be generated, potential partners identified and partnerships created. Potential funders and funding mechanisms have to be researched. The outcome of this meeting was integrated in a VHPB project to investigate creative financing solutions to expand access to and provision of screening and other preventive services, treatment and care of hepatitis B and C in LMICs. The report is available on www.vhpb.org.

Incentives and barriers regarding immunization against influenza and hepatitis of health care workers.

A meeting of the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board in Barcelona in November 2012 brought together health care professionals concerned with viral hepatitis and those concerned with other vaccine-preventable diseases (especially influenza) in order to share experiences and find ways to increase the protection of health care workers through vaccination. Despite the existence of numerous intergovernmental and national resolutions, recommendations or published guidelines, vaccine uptake rates in health care workers are often shockingly low and campaigns to increase those rates have been generally unsuccessful. Participants reviewed the numerous incentives and barriers to vaccine uptake. Reasons for low uptake range from lack of commitment by senior management of health facilities and unclear policies to lack of knowledge, and denial of risk. Positive factors included leadership, involvement of all concerned parties, reminders and peer pressure. Innovative approaches, including the use of social media, are needed. It was concluded that strategies should be modified appropriately to reach specific health care worker populations at risk and that policies for preventing infection of health care workers could include obligatory health checks to determine vaccination status or immunity. Further, mandatory vaccination of health care workers may be the only effective means in order to achieve high vaccination coverage rates. Suggested possible future activities included: refurbishment of the image of the occupation health profession; resolving the logistical problems of administering vaccine; elaborating policy on managing health care workers who have been vaccinated against hepatitis B at birth or in early childhood and who are now starting to work in the health professions; and embedding and applying policies on vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases in all health care facilities and training institutions. Above all, national action plans need to be written, with the involvement of health care workers in their design and implementation.