Examining confidence and hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines: A cross-sectional survey using in-person data collection in rural Ghana.

BACKGROUND: In Ghana, as of 30 July 2022, around one-third of the eligible population are considered fully-vaccinated against COVID-19, and efforts are being made to increase coverage. Vaccine hesitancy is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the delay in the acceptance, or blunt refusal of, vaccines. This study assesses vaccine hesitancy and confidence in Nkwanta South, a rural municipal in Oti region, Ghana. METHODS: Data collection within Nkwanta South took place in sub-municipalities of Alokpatsa (11,028 population), Brewaniase (14,483), and Tutukpene (15,453). Data was collected by 47 local residents, known as Community-Based Surveillance Volunteers (CBSVs), using Kobo Toolbox forms on electronic devices (tablets). Information collected included numerous demographic variables, including age, gender, relationship status, and religion. Further questions covered reasons for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine status. Descriptive and inferential statistics assessed the association between variables to identify predictors of hesitancy. FINDINGS: Across 1500 respondents, 700 (46.7%) reported having received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 800 (53.3%) reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Among unvaccinated respondents, 556 (69.4%) reported willingness to receive the vaccine once available, 190 (23.7%) said they would not be willing to be vaccinated, and 55 (6.9%) said they were unsure. Overall, this represented 30.6% hesitancy within the currently-unvaccinated group. Common reasons for hesitancy included believing that they did not need the vaccine (33.8%), believing the vaccine to be dangerous (30.6%), concerns about side effects (25.3%), and not having enough information (20.1%). Key predictors of hesitancy among our participants included high levels of mistrust, being female, greater years of education, and being Christian. INTERPRETATION: The information gathered here can inform how best to target national and local health promotion strategies. Locally-tailored efforts, that understand local context and social dynamics, must remain a core component of public health activity to achieve a high vaccine uptake.

Allocation of funding into blast injury-related research and blast traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 2019: analysis of global investments from public and philanthropic funders.

INTRODUCTION: There is little systematic tracking or detailed analysis of investments in research and development for blast injury to support decision-making around research future funding. METHODS: This study examined global investments into blast injury-related research from public and philanthropic funders across 2000-2019. Research databases were searched using keywords, and open data were extracted from funder websites. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder and year. Individual awards were categorised to compare amounts invested into different blast injuries, the scientific approaches taken and analysis of research investment into blast traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESULTS: A total of 806 awards were identified into blast injury-related research globally, equating to US$902.1 million (m, £565.9m GBP). There was a general increase in year-on-year investment between 2003 and 2009 followed by a consistent decline in annual funding since 2010. Pre-clinical research received $671.3 m (74.4%) of investment. Brain-related injury research received $427.7 m (47.4%), orthopaedic injury $138.6 m (15.4%), eye injury $63.7 m (7.0%) and ear injury $60.5m (6.7%). Blast TBI research received a total investment of $384.3 m, representing 42.6% of all blast injury-related research. The U.S. Department of Defense funded $719.3 m (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Investment data suggest that blast TBI research has received greater funding than other blast injury health areas. The funding pattern observed can be seen as reactive, driven by the response to the War on Terror, the rising profile of blast TBI and congressionally mandated research.

Systematic analysis of funding awarded for viral hepatitis-related research to institutions in the United Kingdom, 1997-2010.

Viral hepatitis is responsible for great health, social and economic burden both globally and in the UK. This study aimed to assess the research funding awarded to UK institutions for viral hepatitis research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of viral hepatitis. Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on infectious disease research studies funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to viral hepatitis research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. The overall data set included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £76.9 million (3.0%) was directed towards viral hepatitis across 323 studies (5.2%). By pathogen, there were four studies specifically investigating hepatitis A (£3.8 million), 69 studies for hepatitis B (21.4%) with total investment of £14.7 million (19.1%) and 236 (73.1%) hepatitis C studies (£62.7 million, 81.5%). There were 4 studies investigating hepatitis G, and none specifying hepatitis D or E. By associated area, viral hepatitis and therapeutics research received £17.0 million, vaccinology £3.1 million and diagnostics £2.9 million. Preclinical research received £50.3 million (65.4%) across 173 studies, whilst implementation and operational research received £19.4 million (25.3%) across 128 studies. The UK is engaged in much hepatology research, but there are areas where the burden is great and may require greater focus, such as hepatitis E, development of a vaccine for hepatitis C, and further research into hepatitis-associated cancers. Private sector data, and funding information from other countries, would also be useful in priority setting.

Funding healthcare-associated infection research: a systematic analysis of UK research investments, 1997-2010.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a cause of high health and economic burden in the UK. The number of HCAI research studies funded in the UK, and the associated amount of investment, has not previously been analysed. AIM: To assess the level of research funding awarded to UK institutions for HCAI research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of HCAIs. METHODS: Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on how infectious disease research studies were funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to HCAI research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease, and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. FINDINGS: The overall dataset included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £57.7 million was clearly directed towards HCAI research across 297 studies (2.2% of total spend, 2.1% of total studies). Of the HCAI-related projects, 45 studies had a specific focus on MRSA (£10.3 million), 14 towards Clostridium difficile (£10.7 million), two towards pneumonia (£0.3 million) and 103 studies related to surgical infections (£14.1 million). Mean and median study funding was £194,129 (standard deviation: £429,723) and £52,684 (interquartile range: £9,168 to £201,658) respectively. Award size ranged from £108 to £50.0 million. CONCLUSIONS: Research investment for HCAIs has gradually increased in the study period, but remains low due to the health, economic, and social burden of HCAI. Research for hospital-acquired pneumonia, behavioural interventions, economic analyses, and research on emerging pathogens exhibiting antimicrobial resistance remain underfunded.