Focus Groups Exploring U.S. Adults' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Irradiation as a Food Safety Intervention, 2021.

Food irradiation has been studied comprehensively and has been determined to be a safe and effective process for improving food safety. Despite this potential public health impact and current use in developed countries, the technology is not commonly used in the United States, with consumer acceptance often cited as a barrier. Given changes in consumer food-purchasing trends, advancements in irradiation technology, and an increase in multistate foodborne outbreaks, it is an opportune time to revisit consumer acceptance and factors that influence the purchase of irradiated food. We conducted seven focus groups to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding irradiation as a food safety intervention. Meetings were virtual, lasted 90 min, and were held March 15-18, 2021. Participants were stratified into three groups using quota sampling: adults aged 18-64 years, parents of children aged 0-4 years, and adults aged 65 years and older. Consistent with past research, consumers were unaware of what food irradiation is. Facilitators for purchasing irradiated foods included protection from foodborne illness, reduced risk from certain foods, and support from public health agencies. Barriers included lack of knowledge, safety concerns, price, packaging, and a distrust of food technology. The results from these focus groups can inform public messaging and foodborne illness prevention strategies.

Acceptance and feasibility of school-based seasonal influenza vaccination in Singapore: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza is a major cause of disease in children. School-based seasonal influenza vaccination can be a cost-effective tool to improve vaccine uptake among children, and can bring substantial health and economic benefits to the broader community. The acceptance and feasibility of school-based influenza vaccination are likely to be highly context-specific, but limited data exist from tropical settings with year-round influenza transmission. We conducted a qualitative study to assess acceptability and feasibility of a school-based seasonal influenza vaccination programme in Singapore. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, representatives of relevant ministries, preschool principals and parents to understand their perspectives on a proposed school-based seasonal influenza vaccination programme. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 40 interviews. Although preschool-aged children are currently the recommended age group for vaccination, stakeholders suggested introducing the programme in primary and/or secondary schools, where existing vaccination infrastructure would facilitate delivery. However, more comprehensive evidence on the local influenza burden and transmission patterns among children is required to develop an evidence-based, locally relevant rationale for a school-based vaccination programme and effectively engage policy-makers, school staff, and parents. Extensive, age-appropriate public education and awareness campaigns would increase the acceptability of the programme among stakeholders. Stakeholders indicated that an opt-out programme with free or subsidised vaccination would be the most likely to achieve high vaccine coverage and make access to vaccination more equitable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants were supportive of a free or subsidised school-based influenza vaccination programme in primary and/or secondary schools, although children in this age group are not currently a recommended group for vaccination. However, a better informed, evidence-based rationale to estimate the programme's impact in Singapore is currently lacking. Extensive, age-appropriate public education and awareness campaigns will help ensure full support across key stakeholder groups.

Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemasks and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46-0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14-0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36-0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62), but not viral infections or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCTs with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.