Various efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates have been employed in the United States. We sought to rapidly investigate public reactions to these efforts to increase vaccination, including self-reported responses to widespread reduced masking behavior, monetary incentive programs to get vaccinated, and work vaccination requirements. Using a unique method for data collection (Random Domain Intercept Technology), we captured a large (N = 14,152), broad-based sample of the United States Web-using population (data collected from June 30 –July 26, 2021). About 3/4 of respondents reported being vaccinated. The likelihood of vaccination and vaccination intention differed across various demographic indicators (e.g., gender, age, income, political leaning). We observed mixed reactions to efforts aimed at increasing vaccination rates among unvaccinated respondents. While some reported that specific efforts would increase their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 16% and 32%), others reported that efforts would decrease their likelihood of getting vaccinated (between 17% and 42%). Reactions differed by general vaccination intention, as well as other demographic indicators (e.g., race, education). Our results highlight the need to fully understand reactions to policy changes, programs, and mandates before they are communicated to the public and employed. Moreover, the results emphasize the importance of understanding how reactions differ across groups, as this information can assist in targeting intervention efforts and minimizing potentially differential negative impact.

Research in rapidly evolving policy contexts can lead to the following ethical challenges for sponsors and researchers: the study’s standard of care can become different than what patients outside the study receive, there may be political or other pressure to move ahead with unproven interventions, and new findings or revised policies may decrease the relevance of ongoing studies. These ethical challenges are considerable, but not unprecedented. In this article, we review the case of a multinational, randomized, controlled perinatal HIV prevention trial, the “PROMISE” (Promoting Maternal Infant Survival Everywhere) study. PROMISE compared the relative efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV. The sponsor engaged an independent international ethics panel to address controversy about the study’s standard of care and relevance as national and international guidelines changed. This ethics panel concluded that continuing the PROMISE trial as designed was ethically permissible because: (1) participants in all arms received interventions that were effective, and there was insufficient evidence about whether one intervention was more effective or safer than the other, and (2) data from PROMISE could be useful for a diverse range of stakeholders. In general, trials designed to inform rapidly evolving policy issues should develop mechanisms to revisit social value while recognizing that the value of research varies for diverse stakeholders with legitimate reasons to weigh evidence differently. We conclude by providing four reasons that trials may depart from the standard of care after a change in policy, while remaining ethically justifiable, and by suggesting how to improve existing trial oversight mechanisms to address evolving social value.

Background In response to reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) post-vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine was paused and then restarted in April 2021. Our objective was to assess whether this pause adversely impacted vaccine confidence. Methods Two large internet-based surveys were conducted in the US among adults to measure knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of the J&J vaccine pause and rates of vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated persons before, during and after the pause. Results Among 66% of respondents aware of the pause, 44% identified blood clots as the reason for the pause without prompting. The impact of the pause on vaccine behavior among unvaccinated persons and perception of the vaccine safety system was mixed and modified by trust in the public health authorities. Those who were less willing to get vaccinated because of the pause were less inclined for all vaccines, not only the J&J product. Moreover, a notable proportion (22.1%) of the small number of persons (n = 30) vaccinated with the J&J vaccine after the pause reported not receiving information about the risk of TTS. The proportion of unvaccinated persons who were hesitant was increasing before and during the pause and then leveled off after the pause. Conclusions The J&J vaccine pause is unlikely to be a major barrier to vaccine uptake. Public attitudes about vaccines may be more resilient than appreciated, especially when safety issues are investigated with transparent communication. This paper has important implications for messaging and program administration with future vaccine-specific adverse events. Efforts may be warranted to ensure all persons being offered the J&J vaccine are made aware of the risk of TTS.

In this research note we reflect on our failed attempt to synthesize the community engagement literature through a standard systematic review and explain our rationale for now embarking on a realist synthesis of community engagement in global health research. We believe this paper will be helpful for many who grapple with the lack of clarity about community engagement's core elements and mechanisms.

Background: Accurate and timely COVID-19 vaccination coverage data are vital for informing targeted, effective messaging and outreach and identifying barriers to equitable health service access. However, gathering vaccination rate data is challenging, and efforts often result in information that is either limited in scope (eg, limited to administrative data) or delayed (impeding the ability to rapidly respond). The evaluation of innovative technologies and approaches that can assist in addressing these limitations globally are needed. Objective: The objective of this survey study was to assess the validity of Random Domain Intercept Technology (RDIT; RIWI Corp) for tracking self-reported vaccination rates in real time at the US national and state levels. RDIT-a form of online intercept sampling-has the potential to address the limitations of current vaccination tracking systems by allowing for the measurement of additional data (eg, attitudinal data) and real-time, rapid data collection anywhere there is web access. Methods: We used RDIT from June 30 to July 26, 2021, to reach a broad sample of US adult (aged ≥18 years) web users and asked questions related to COVID-19 vaccination. Self-reported vaccination status was used as the focus of this validation exercise. National- and state-level RDIT-based vaccination rates were compared to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-reported national and state vaccination rates. Johns Hopkins University's and Emory University's institutional review boards designated this project as public health practice to inform message development (not human subjects research). Results: By using RDIT, 63,853 adult web users reported their vaccination status (6.2% of the entire 1,026,850 American web-using population that was exposed to the survey). At the national level, the RDIT-based estimate of adult COVID-19 vaccine coverage was slightly higher (44,524/63,853, 69.7%; 95% CI 69.4%-70.1%) than the CDC-reported estimate (67.9%) on July 15, 2021 (ie, midway through data collection; t63,852=10.06; P < .001). The RDIT-based and CDC-reported state-level estimates were strongly and positively correlated (r=0.90; P < .001). RDIT-based estimates were within 5 percentage points of the CDC's estimates for 29 states. Conclusions: This broad-reaching, real-time data stream may provide unique advantages for tracking the use of a range of vaccines and for the timely evaluation of vaccination interventions. Moreover, RDIT could be harnessed to rapidly assess demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral constructs that are not available in administrative data, which could allow for deeper insights into the real-time predictors of vaccine uptake-enabling targeted and timely interventions.

None

There is a high burden of human papillomavirus (HPV) associated cancers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Reducing the recommended dosing schedule from two doses to one makes the vaccine schedule logistically simpler and lowers the cost. This could make the distribution of the current vaccine supply more equitable and lead to the protection of more people. However, the clinical trials studying the efficacy of a single-dose schedule have not yet delivered final results. Against this background, the question is whether a single-dose HPV vaccine recommendation is appropriate now, and if so, what are the ethical considerations of such a recommendation? We developed three ethical recommendations: (1) adopt a holistic view of evidence to justify policy decisions; (2) prioritize the reduction in global disparities in decision-making at all levels; and (3) be transparent in the reporting of how key stakeholder interests have shaped the collection and interpretation of the evidence, and ultimate decisions. The complex discussion regarding the HPV single-dose vaccine schedule highlights the need for in-depth engagement globally to improve our understanding of country-specific contexts, and how those contexts influence decisions regarding the HPV vaccine single-dose recommendation.

Introduction: Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical aspect of global health. Recent years have seen an expansion of community engagement activities linked to health research, but debates and inconsistencies remain about the aims of different types of engagement, mechanisms underpinning their implementation and impact, and influential contextual factors. Greater commitment to and consistency around community engagement by health research programs, implementers and funders requires a more coherent evidence base. This realist review is designed to improve our understanding of how and why community engagement contributes to intended and unintended outcomes (including research and ethical outcomes) in different contexts. Given the breadth and diversity of the literature on community engagement in health research, the review will initially focus on malaria research in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) and draw on wider global health literature where needed. Methods and analysis: Community engagement in practice is often a complex set of interventions. We will conduct a realist review – a theory driven approach to evidence synthesis – to provide explanations for how and why community engagement with health research produces the pattern of outcomes observed across different contexts of application. We will consolidate evidence from a range of documents, including qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies. The review will follow several stages: devising an initial programme theory, searching evidence, selecting appropriate documents, extracting data, synthesizing and refining the programme theory, and reiteration of these steps as needed. Ethics and dissemination: A formal ethics review is not required for this literature review. Findings will be disseminated in a peer reviewed journal, through national and international conferences, and through a set of short briefings tailored for audiences with an interest in community engagement. Outputs and presentations will be informed by and feed into our network of community engagement experts. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019125687

Community engagement is crucial for public health initiatives, yet it remains an under-studied process within national disease elimination programs. This report shares key lessons learned for community engagement practices during a malaria outbreak response in the Los Tres Brazos neighborhood of urban Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic from 2015-2016. In this two-year period, 233 cases of malaria were reported—more than seven times the number of cases (31) reported in the previous two years. The initial outbreak response by the national malaria program emphasized “top-down” interventions such as active surveillance, vector control, and educative talks within the community. Despite a transient reduction in reported cases in mid-2015, transmission resurged at the end of 2015. The program responded by introducing active roles for trained community members that included door-to-door fever screening, testing with rapid diagnostic tests and treatment. Malaria cases declined significantly throughout 2016 and community-based active surveillance infrastructure helped to detect and limit a small episode of transmission in 2017. Results from qualitative research among community members revealed two key factors that facilitated their cooperation with community-based surveillance activities: motivation to help one’s community; and trust among stakeholders (community health workers, their neighbors and other key figures in the community, and malaria program staff and leadership). This experience suggests that community-led interventions and the program’s willingness to learn and adapt under changing circumstances can help control malaria transmission and pave the way for elimination.

This article explores the relationship between ethics and the production of global health photographic images. Through the text, we emphasize the need for greater awareness of potential ethical pitfalls, not just in relationship to the finished product of the image but also throughout the full photographic process. In order to do so, we present and explore three vignettes detailing our personal global health photographic experiences. Using these examples of the process of photographic production, we argue that the ethical emphasis needs to fall as much on the way of making and circulating the images as on the resulting images and their content. In showing that ethics starts long before the decision to publish a photograph, we engage global health photography as a relationship built of unequal power dynamics, where agency is held (albeit lopsidedly) by all of those around the camera-the subject, the photographer, and the bystanders or actors who exist beyond the photograph's composition. By following the concept of "encouraging people to do what is best given certain circumstances and constraints," we as photographers and global health workers advocate for a more fully human interaction through conscious, careful global health visual policy and humane photographic deliberation.