ABSTRACT
This article presents attitudes and practices regarding COVID-19 vaccination in the South American population. The study collected data from a self-administered survey distributed through social media platforms between February and April 2022 (N = 6555). The survey included questions related to participants' sociodemographic background, flu vaccination practices, sources of information about COVID-19, and opinions regarding pandemic management and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The respondents agreed with the statement that COVID-19 vaccines were necessary (86.4%), effective (79.8%), safe (79.1%), and should be mandatory (64%). Overall, 83.4% accepted vaccination and 12.3% refused it completely. Main rejection reasons were safety (65.8%) and efficacy (54.9%) issues, and rushed development and approvals (49.1%). Vaccine uptake was associated with being ≥60 years, being a healthcare worker, previous influenza vaccine uptake, adherence to preventive measures, the death of ≥1 close people from COVID-19, and being informed through mass media or health authorities' channels. Vaccine uptake inversely correlated with male gender, low educational level, and use of closed social networks for COVID-19 information purposes. This study provides valuable insights into COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and practices in South America that may be used to promote vaccine uptake in the region. Higher COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among people with previously acquired prevention habits reinforces the importance of routine health promotion strategies.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a leading cause of life-threatening bacterial meningitis and septicemia. Evidence points to a knowledge gap among parents, teenagers, and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding IMD and available vaccines, including those against the highly prevalent serogroup B. AREAS COVERED: An online survey was conducted between March 27 and 12 April 2019, to gather insights into the knowledge that parents/guardians have about IMD vaccines. The children were aged 2 months to 10 years in Australia, Brazil, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Spain, 5-20 years in the UK, and 16-23 years in the USA. The findings were discussed in the context of the available literature and solutions were proposed to minimize the knowledge gap and the barriers to vaccination against IMD. EXPERT OPINION: The survey demonstrated that parents have a good understanding of IMD but a limited understanding of the different serogroups and vaccines. The available literature highlighted multiple barriers to IMD vaccine uptake; these may be reduced through education of HCPs, clear recommendations to parents by HCPs, the use of technology, and disease-awareness initiatives that engage parents through physical and digital channels. Further studies are warranted to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IMD vaccination.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Meningococcal Infections , Meningococcal Vaccines , Child , Adolescent , Humans , Pandemics , Meningococcal Infections/epidemiology , Meningococcal Infections/prevention & control , Meningococcal Infections/microbiology , Vaccination , SerogroupABSTRACT
Background: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly divergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. Objective: In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. Methods: An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing diverse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health-implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. Results: The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof; (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics; (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources; (4) setting up a technical working group; and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. Conclusions: Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics; generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations; and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.
ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar desfechos clínico-econômicos associados à vacina contra influenza quadrivalente baseada em células (QIVc) versus a vacina trivalente atualmente utilizada (TIVe) para prevenção sazonal de influenza no Programa Nacional de Imunizações (PNI) brasileiro. Métodos: Um modelo estático de árvore de decisão foi usado. Considerou-se um total de 54.071.642 indivíduos vacinados em 2019; a circulação de influenza por subtipo foi baseada em dados de vigilância epidemiológica. A efetividade da vacina (EV) TIVe foi extraída de metanálises publicadas; já a EV relativa da QIVc foi retirada de um estudo observacional retrospectivo. A incompatibilidade antigênica da vacina com vírus circulantes foi baseada em fontes retrospectivas internacionais. O uso de recursos baseou-se em estudos do mundo real. Custos unitários foram retirados de tabelas-padrão publicados em 2019 em reais (BRL). Resultados: Substituir a TIVe pela QIVc pode evitar, anualmente, casos sintomáticos (452.065) e reduzir visitas ambulatoriais (118.735), hospitalizações (15.466), mortes (2.753), custos médicos (-BRL 46.677.357) e custos indiretos (-BRL 59.962.135). O número anual de anos de vida ajustados por qualidade de vida (QALYs) pode aumentar em 96.129. Resultados de base a partir da perspectiva do pagador mostram uma razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de BRL 17.293/QALY e, da perspectiva da sociedade, o RCEI obtido foi de um ganho de BRL 16.669/QALY. Usando o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) brasileiro como um limiar (BRL 34.533/QALY), trocar a TIVe pela QIVc no PNI pode ser uma estratégia altamente custo-efetiva. Conclusões: O uso da QIVc pelo PNI tem potencial para ser altamente custo-efetivo tanto da perspectiva do pagador quanto da sociedade
Objectives: This study aimed to estimate health and economic outcomes associated to cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) versus current trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVe) for seasonal influenza prevention in the Brazilian National Immunization Program (NIP), from the societal and public payer perspectives. Methods: A 1-year static decision-tree model based on literature was used. 54,071,642 total vaccinated individuals in 2019 were considered; influenza subtype circulation was based on Brazilian epidemiologic data (2009-2019). TIVe vaccine effectiveness (VE) was extracted from a published meta-analysis and QIVc relative VE from an international retrospective observational study. A/H3N2 egg-adaptation and B mismatch to recommended strain were gathered from international retrospective sources. Resource use was obtained from real-world studies. Inputs were adjusted to influenza subtype and multiple age groups with Brazilian literature. Unit costs were retrieved from published standard tables in 2019 Brazilian Reais (BRL). Results: Replacing TIVe with QIVc, can annually avert symptomatic cases (452,065) and reduce outpatient visits (118,735); hospitalizations (15,466), deaths (2,753), overall medical direct costs (-BRL 46,677,357) and indirect costs (-BRL 59,962,135). The annual number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) could be increased by 96,129. Base case results from the payer perspective show an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BRL 17,293/QALY gained and from the societal perspective the ICER obtained was BRL 16,669/QALY gained. Using the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a threshold (BRL 34,533/QALY) switching TIVe with QIVc in the NIP can be a highly cost-effective strategy, leading to a high QALY increment and preventing medical and indirect costs. Conclusions: The use of QIVc by the NIP has the potential to be highly cost-effective in the payer and society perspective
Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Immunization Programs , Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving ≥80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations. CONCLUSION: This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV.
Subject(s)
Immune System Diseases/drug therapy , Immunocompromised Host , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Inflammation/drug therapy , Yellow Fever Vaccine/adverse effects , Yellow Fever/prevention & control , Chronic Disease , Contraindications, Drug , Decision Making, Shared , Delphi Technique , Humans , Immune System Diseases/immunology , Inflammation/immunology , Risk Assessment , Vaccination/adverse effects , Yellow Fever Vaccine/administration & dosageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving >/=80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations. CONCLUSION: This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting Vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV
Subject(s)
Yellow Fever , Vaccination/standards , eHealth StrategiesABSTRACT
Abstract Background: In Brazil, we are facing an alarming epidemic scenario of Yellow fever (YF), which is reaching the most populous areas of the country in unvaccinated people. Vaccination is the only effective tool to prevent YF. In special situations, such as patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (CIMID), undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as a higher risk of severe adverse events may occur, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) should be performed on an individual level. Main body of the abstract: Faced with the scarcity of specific orientation on YFV for this special group of patients, the Brazilian Rheumatology Society (BRS) endorsed a project aiming the development of individualized YFV recommendations for patients with CIMID, guided by questions addressed by both medical professionals and patients, followed an internationally validated methodology (GIN-McMaster Guideline Development). Firstly, a systematic review was carried out and an expert panel formed to take part of the decision process, comprising BRS clinical practitioners, as well as individuals from the Brazilian Dermatology Society (BDS), Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group (GEDIIB), and specialists on infectious diseases and vaccination (from Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Immunizations National Societies); in addition, two representatives of patient groups were included as members of the panel. When the quality of the evidence was low or there was a lack of evidence to determine the recommendations, the decisions were based on the expert opinion panel and a Delphi approach was performed. A recommendation was accepted upon achieving ≥80% agreement among the panel, including the patient representatives. As a result, eight recommendations were developed regarding the safety of YFV in patients with CIMID, considering the immunosuppression degree conferred by the treatment used. It was not possible to establish recommendations on the effectiveness of YFV in these patients as there is no consistent evidence to support these recommendations. Conclusion: This paper approaches a real need, assessed by clinicians and patient care groups, to address specific questions on the management of YFV in patients with CIMID living or traveling to YF endemic areas, involving specialists from many areas together with patients, and might have global applicability, contributing to and supporting vaccination practices. We recommended a shared decision-making approach on taking or not the YFV.
