Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients.

Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.

Exploring Tdap and influenza vaccine uptake and its determinants in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study.

Background: The literature claims that an increased risk of complications from pertussis and influenza exists for pregnant women and infants. Maternal tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and influenza vaccines seem to decrease this risk so that several countries are committed to increase vaccination uptake, but not all of them know their own vaccination coverage and factors that motivate this population to vaccination. Study Design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Methods: We conducted this survey to estimate among pregnant women: 1) the vaccine coverage, 2) the availability of information, 3) the knowledge about maternal Tdap and influenza vaccination, 4) the factors that could have driven unvaccinated pregnant women to have themselves vaccinated. In addition, determinants of Tdap and influenza vaccine uptake and correct knowledge about vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccination in pregnancy were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Of the 250 women included in the present study, only 58 (23.2%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 18-28.4%) and 21 (8.1%, 95% CI: 5-11.8%) reported that they had been vaccinated with Tdap and influenza vaccine, respectively, during their current pregnancy. The most common reasons cited for getting themselves vaccinated was having background knowledge of the health problems due to the diseases prevented by Tdap and influenza vaccines, awareness regarding these vaccines being recommended in pregnancy, knowledge of their effectiveness and/or side effects, and having been informed about vaccination by a healthcare professional. Conclusions: Influenza and Tdap vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Italy is low, however, the present study showed that women are available to get vaccinated during pregnancy when adequately informed about the vaccines recommended.

Where are the keys to improve vaccine uptake in adults and elders in European countries?

Improving vaccination of the elderly is one of the most important challenges in the coming years, as it was for infant's decades ago. Insufficient vaccine uptake in the elderly can be considered a concern with regard to the burden of vaccine preventable diseases in this growing population. The purpose of this paper is to have an overview on the different steps involved in decision policy making from the regulatory agencies until people are vaccinated. Examples of different policies within European countries will be compared for influenza, streptococcal and zoster infections. For each step, key improvements to increase vaccine uptake in this specific population will be proposed.

Providers' beliefs about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing cancer and their recommended age groups for vaccination: Findings from a provider survey, 2012.

BACKGROUND: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was recommended in 2007 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to preadolescent and adolescent girls. Vaccination initiation was recommended at age 11-12 years with the option to start at age 9. Catchup vaccination was recommended to females aged 13-26 previously not vaccinated. However, vaccination coverage remains low. Studies show that the HPV vaccine can prevent cervical, vulvar, vaginal, anal and some oropharyngeal cancers and that provider recommendation of vaccines can improve low vaccination rates. METHODS: Using data from 2012 DocStyles, an annual, web-based survey of U.S. healthcare professionals including physicians and nurse practitioners (n=1753), we examined providers' knowledge about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing cancer and their vaccine recommendation to all age-eligible females (9-26 years). Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences across specialties. RESULTS: Knowledge about HPV vaccine effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer was highly prevalent (96.9%), but less so for anal, vaginal, vulvar and oropharyngeal cancers. Only 14.5% of providers recommended the vaccine to all age-eligible females and 20.2% recommended it to females aged 11-26 years. Knowledge assessment of cancers associated with HPV and vaccination recommendations varied significantly among providers (p<0.01). Providers more frequently recommended the vaccine to girls older than 11-12 years. CONCLUSIONS: Improving providers' knowledge about HPV-associated cancers and the age for vaccination initiation, communicating messages focusing on the vaccine safety and benefits in cancer prevention and on the importance of its delivery prior to sexual onset, may improve HPV vaccine coverage.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Barriers to the assessment and recommendation of HPV vaccination among healthcare providers in Texas.

Background: Healthcare providers (HCPs) recommendations for HPV vaccination plays a critical role in increasing vaccination uptake. This study assesses the prevalence of reported barriers to HPV vaccination assessment and recommendation among HCPs in Texas. Methods: Study data were obtained from a population-based survey of HCPs currently practicing in Texas. Participants were asked about their HPV vaccination assessment and recommendation practices and the reasons for not assessing or recommending the vaccine. Barriers were stratified by HCP characteristics including age, sex, race/ethnicity, location of practice, provider type, and type of facility. Results: Among the 826 HCPs included in this study, 47.3 % never, 49.6 % sometimes, and 3.0 % often/always assessed a patient's HPV vaccination status. Similarly, 36.0 % never, 36.2 % sometimes, and 27.9 % often/always recommended HPV vaccination. The most frequently reported barriers to assessment and recommendation of HPV vaccination were time constraints (22.9 %), delegating the task to others (15.0 %), lack of effective tools and information to give patients (12.0 %), and requiring additional training (9.2 %). HCPs who were female, less than 35 years old, non-Hispanic black, and nonphysician HCPs (Physician Assistant, Nurse Practitioner) most frequently reported lacking effective tools and information and a need for additional training. Conclusion: The assessment and recommendation for HPV vaccination among HCPs in Texas is suboptimal. Barriers reported varied based on the provider's characteristics. Addressing these barriers, such as by providing more effective tools and information and offering additional training to HCPs, could potentially increase HPV vaccination rates in Texas. The findings also suggest that interventions should be tailored to specific demographic groups.

National and regional differences in meningococcal vaccine recommendations for individuals at an increased risk of meningococcal disease.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a severe, life-threatening condition caused by infection with Neisseria meningitidis. Currently available vaccines offer protection against the five most common meningococcal disease-causing serogroups and include monovalent and quadrivalent conjugate vaccines (MenA, MenC, MenACWY vaccines) and outer membrane vesicle- and/or recombinant protein-based vaccines (MenB vaccines). AREAS COVERED: Country and regional immunization programs target populations susceptible to IMD and typically emphasize the highest-risk age groups (i.e., infants, adolescents/young adults, and the elderly); however, additional groups are also considered at an elevated risk and are the focus of the current review. Specific increased-risk groups include individuals with underlying immunocompromising medical conditions, university/college students, Indigenous people, laboratory workers, military personnel, men who have sex with men, and travelers to areas with hyperendemic IMD. This review compares established meningococcal vaccination recommendations for these vulnerable groups in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, and Turkey. EXPERT OPINION: Recommendations should be standardized to cover all groups at increased risk of IMD.

Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic for improved influenza control.

The World Health Organization noted that COVID-19 vaccination programmes could be leveraged to deliver influenza vaccination. In 2008, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations' (IFPMA) Influenza Vaccine Supply International Task Force (IVS) developed a survey method using the number of influenza vaccine doses distributed globally to estimate vaccination coverage rates. Seven hundred and ninety-seven million doses were distributed in 2021, representing a 205% increase over the 262 million doses distributed in 2004, exceeding the number of doses distributed during and after the 2009-2010 influenza pandemic. The most obvious explanation for the global increase is the enabling of critical elements of the vaccine ecosystem by decision-makers during the COVID-19 pandemic to reinforce implementation of influenza vaccination programs. Most of the improvements in performance of influenza programs during the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified in four categories: 1) promoting vaccination using tailored approaches for specific populations; 2) improving convenient access to influenza vaccines in COVID-safe settings; 3) improving reimbursement of seasonal influenza vaccination for priority groups; 4) maintaining the timing of vaccination to the autumn. In spite of the increase in rates of seasonal influenza vaccines distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic, globally, the rate of influenza dose distribution is sub-optimal, and a considerable proportion of the influenza infections remains preventable. To sustain the benefits from increased uptake of influenza vaccines, governments need to sustain the efforts made during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a number of global policy endeavours should be undertaken, including developing a clear global roadmap for achieving influenza control objectives, adopted by a WHA resolution, in line with the strategic objective 3 of the Global Influenza Strategy 2030, embedded in the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030).

Vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices among health care providers in New York State.

Community-wide vaccine uptake remains sub-optimal. Healthcare provider (HCP) vaccine recommendations influence patient vaccination; however, provider vaccine recommendation behavior is highly influenced by one's own vaccine attitudes and/or knowledge. We aim to describe vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices (KAP) among New York State HCPs. A survey to assess HCP KAP was developed and electronically distributed to NYS members of national medical organizations via their local chapter administrators. Descriptive statistical methods were used to define provider KAP. A total of 864 surveys were included, 500 (60%) and 336 (40%) primary and specialty care providers, respectively. Eighty-one percent (402/499) of primary care providers (PCPs) report encountering vaccine hesitant patients daily or weekly. Of the 500 PCPs who responded, only 204 (41%) stated strong agreement with confidence in their communications with vaccine hesitant patients. HCPs who correctly answered all four knowledge questions were more likely to self-report routine recommendations of standard vaccines to all patients when compared to those who correctly answered fewer questions (489/588 (83%) vs 135/241 (56%), p < .05). HCPs were more likely to routinely recommend standard vaccines to all patients if they also report initiating vaccine discussion (476/485 (98%) vs 148/344 (43%), p < .05) and reviewing and recommending vaccinations at each encounter (315/320 (98%) vs 308/508 (61%), p < .05). Vaccine hesitancy exists across healthcare specialties and provider roles. Focused interventions should include reaching all HCPs to promote vaccinations for disease prevention, tailoring messages to reduce HCP vaccine misperceptions, and increasing awareness of evidence-based office strategies known to facilitate immunizations.

Vaccine hesitancy in health-care providers in Western countries: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a leading cause of suboptimal vaccine uptake rates worldwide. The interaction between patients and health-care providers (HCPs) is the keystone in addressing VH. However, significant proportions of HCPs, including those who administer vaccines, are personally and professionally vaccine-hesitant. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review sought to characterize the nature, extent, correlates, and consequences of VH among HCPs. We included 39 quantitative and qualitative studies conducted in Western countries, published since 2015, that assessed VH among HCPs in general, for several vaccines. Studies were reviewed using the WHO 3Cs model - (lack of) confidence, complacency, and (lack of) convenience. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the lack of validated tools and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to measure VH among HCPs, this review confirms its presence in this population, at frequencies that vary by country, profession type, setting, and level of medical education. Lack of knowledge and mistrust in health authorities/pharmaceutical industry/experts were among its principal drivers. Improving the content about vaccination in HCPs' training programs, facilitating access to reliable information for use during consultations, and developing and validating instruments to measure HCPs' VH and its determinants are key to addressing VH among HCPs.

Immunogenicity and safety of MenACWY-TT, a quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine recently licensed in the United States for individuals ≥2 years of age.

Vaccination offers the best way to prevent invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). As demonstrated in countries with national immunization programs (NIPs) against IMD, meningococcal conjugate vaccines have contributed to significant declines in incidence. Since some meningococcal vaccines are associated with modest immunogenicity in infants, possible immunological interference upon concomitant administration with some pediatric vaccines, and administration errors resulting from improper reconstitution, opportunities for improvement exist. A quadrivalent conjugate vaccine, MenQuadfi® (Meningococcal [Serogroups A, C, Y, and W] Conjugate Vaccine; Sanofi, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania), was approved in 2020 for the prevention of IMD caused by meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in individuals ≥2 years of age in the United States. Five pivotal studies and one ancillary study supported approval in the United States; clinical trials in infants are ongoing. Data on the immunogenicity and safety of this vaccine are presented, and its potential value in clinical practice is discussed.

Recommending COVID-19 Vaccines to Patients: Practice and Concerns of Frontline Family Doctors.

Background: Recommendation from doctors is a well-recognized motivator toward vaccine uptake. Family doctors are in the prime position to advise the public on COVID-19 vaccination. We studied the practice and concerns of frontline family doctors concerning COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to patients. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of all family doctors in the Hong Kong College of Family Physicians between June and July 2021. Their practice of making COVID-19 recommendation to patients was assessed. Based on the Health Belief Model, factors associated with doctors' recommendation practices were explored and examined. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate the factors, including COVID-19 vaccine attributes, associated with doctors' practices in making recommendations. Their own vaccination status and psychological antecedents to vaccine hesitancy were measured. Results: A total of 312 family doctors responded (a 17.6% response rate). The proportion of doctors who had received COVID-19 vaccines was 90.1%. The proportion of doctors who would recommend all patients without contraindications for the vaccination was 64.4%. The proportion of doctors who would proactively discuss COVID-19 vaccines with patients was 52.9%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that doctors' own COVID-19 vaccination status was the strongest predictor of family doctors making a recommendation to patients (aOR 12.23 95% CI 3.45-43.33). Longer duration of practice, willingness to initiate the relevant discussion with patients and less worry about vaccine side effects on chronic illness patients were the other factors associated with making a COVID-19 vaccination recommendation. Conclusions: Family doctors should be encouraged to get vaccinated themselves and initiate discussions with patients about COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine safety data on patients with chronic illness, training and guidelines for junior doctors may facilitate the COVID-19 vaccination recommendation practices of family doctors.

Vaccine complacency and dose distribution inequities limit the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination, despite a positive trend in use.

Sustainable demand for seasonal influenza vaccines is a component of national security strategies for pandemic preparedness. However, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many weaknesses in the capacity of countries to design and execute sustainable vaccination programs. An influenza pandemic remains a global threat and yet there is no global monitoring system for assessing progress towards influenza vaccination coverage targets. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations' (IFPMA) Influenza Vaccine Supply International Task Force (IVS) developed a survey method in 2008 to estimate seasonal influenza vaccination coverage rates, which in turn serves as a crude estimate of pandemic preparedness. It provides evidence to guide expanded efforts for pandemic preparedness, specifically for increasing COVID-19 vaccine immunization levels. Furthermore, the results presented herein serve as a proxy for assessing the state of pandemic preparedness at a global and regional level. This paper adds data from 2018 and 2019 to the previous analyses. The current data show an upward or stable global trend in seasonal influenza vaccine dose distributed per 1,000 population with a 7% increase between 2017 and 2018 and 6% increase between 2018 and 2019. However, considerable regional inequities in access to vaccine persist. Three regions, Africa, the Middle-east, and Southeast Asia together account for 50% of the global population but only 6% of distributed seasonal influenza vaccine doses. This is an important finding in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as distribution of influenza vaccine doses in many ways reflects access to COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, improving seasonal vaccine uptake rates is critical for optimizing the annual benefits by reducing the huge annual influenza-associated societal burdens and by providing protection to vulnerable individuals against serious complications from seasonal influenza infections.

Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision-making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers' decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza-specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.

A comprehensive review of vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: An Indian perspective.

The disease burden of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in India is estimated to be one of the highest in the world in the near future. Patients with IBD, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapy, are at increased risk for developing vaccine-preventable illnesses. Adult vaccination policy and vaccination in patients with IBD are presently being at a very low level in India. This review discusses in detail the need for vaccination, levels of immunosuppression, a brief account of live and inactivated vaccines, available vaccines, and their utility in patients with IBD, with a special focus on recent recommendations.

Vaccination in the Adult Patient Infected with HIV: A Review of Vaccine Efficacy and Immunogenicity.

Patients infected with HIV remain at increased risk of mortality and morbidity from diseases that are preventable with vaccines partly due to the persisting immunopathology that results in impaired responses to vaccination despite virologic suppression. Because data on clinical effectiveness in patients who are immunocompromised remain limited, undervaccination of individuals with HIV poses a major concern. Multiple societies have published recommendations on vaccination in individuals infected with HIV. Many of these recommendations are based on extrapolation of data from clinical trials that usually exclude patients with HIV, although there is a growing body of data from patients infected with HIV as well. In this review, we describe the available literature on vaccine response in the adult patient with HIV as measured by immunogenicity or vaccine efficacy.

Is patient insurance type related to physician recommendation, administration and referral for adult vaccination? A survey of US physicians.

This study evaluated physician practices and perceived barriers for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap), and zoster vaccination of adults in the United States (US), with emphasis on patients with Medicare versus commercial insurance. A cross-sectional internet-based survey of board-certified general/family practitioners and internists (N = 1,000) recruited from a national US physician panel was conducted in May 2017. For influenza, rates of physician recommendation (84% of Medicare patients, 82% of commercially-insured patients), administration (80% Medicare, 78% commercial), and referral (11% Medicare, 11% commercial) were similar regardless of insurance type. Tdap recommendation was higher for commercial compared to Medicare patients (59% vs. 54%, p < 0.001); while zoster recommendation was higher for Medicare patients than commercial (59% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). For Tdap and zoster, higher administration rates were reported in commercial patients (64% Tdap, 36% zoster) than Medicare (56% Tdap, 32% zoster), and referral rates were higher for Medicare patients (19% Tdap, 49% zoster) than commercial (14% Tdap, 42% zoster). Over 40% of physicians would be much more likely to administer Tdap and zoster vaccines if they were covered under Medicare Part B, with more physicians indicating financial barriers as "major" or "moderate" for Medicare than commercial patients. These differences may be related to financial barriers associated with adult vaccinations that are covered under Medicare Part D and involve patient out-of-pocket costs. Efforts to reduce financial barriers associated with adult vaccinations covered under Medicare Part D and to improve patient and physician knowledge could positively impact physician recommendation, administration, and referral for adult vaccination in the US.

Evaluating Variability in Immunization Requirements and Policy Among U.S. Colleges and Universities.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate variation in vaccine requirements, recommendations, and enforcement strategies among U.S. four-year colleges and universities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study abstracting information from Web sites among a sample of 216 four-year colleges and universities from all 50 states and District of Columbia. Our primary outcomes of interest included: type and number of vaccines required for school entry, vaccines recommended by schools for students, and vaccines supplied through student health services. Covariates of interest included: school type, region, school size, mention of American College Health Association recommendations, presence of an accredited health center, mention of state requirements, presence of an enforcement strategy, and exemption stringency of the state in which the school was located. RESULTS: Almost all (94%) schools required at least one vaccine for school entry, and 48% required three or more vaccines. The most commonly required vaccines were measles, mumps, and rubella (88.4%) and meningococcal vaccine (51.9%). All schools required the same vaccines included in state requirements but 65% also required additional vaccines. Most schools (67.1%) used registration hold to enforce requirements, while 14.8% restricted students from campus housing and 2.8% dismissed noncompliant students. Seventeen percent of schools had no published enforcement strategies. A higher proportion of private compared to public universities required three or more vaccines (57% vs. 37.3%, p = .014). CONCLUSIONS: While most schools have immunization requirements, there is significant variation in number and type of vaccines required. This suggests potential inconsistent uptake of recommended vaccines for college students and underlies the need to characterize facilitators and barriers to immunization program implementation on college campuses.

Malaria vaccine: WHO position paper, January 2016 - Recommendations.

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of malaria vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on malaria vaccine published in the Weekly epidemiological Record in January 2016 [1]. The current document is the first WHO position paper on malaria vaccination and focuses primarily on the available evidence concerning the only malaria vaccine having received a positive regulation assessment from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [2]. The position paper gives consideration to the epidemiological features of the disease and assesses the potential use of the vaccine for public health benefits. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence to recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the joint recommendation of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization and the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). These recommendations were discussed by SAGE and MPAC at the October 2015 SAGE meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html.

Vaccinations for the HIV-Infected Adult: A Review of the Current Recommendations, Part I.

Vaccination is a critical component for ensuring the health of those living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by protection against vaccine-preventable diseases. Since HIV-infected persons may have reduced immune responses and shorter durations of protection post-vaccination, HIV-specific guidelines have been published by global and national advisory organizations to address these potential concerns. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current guidelines and evidence-based data for vaccinating HIV-infected adults, including guidance on modified vaccine dosing and testing strategies, as well as safety considerations, to enhance protection among this vulnerable population. In the current article, part I of the two-part series, inactivated vaccines with broad indications as well as vaccines for specific risk and age groups will be discussed.