Recent outbreaks of serogroup C meningococcal disease in Southern California have led the California Department of Public Health to recommend the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY) for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in Southern California. High-risk GBMSM have also been advised to utilize pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. Data collected from a community-based sample of HIV-negative GBMSM in Los Angeles County (N = 476) were used in a multinomial logit regression analysis to identify patterns in MenACWY and PrEP usage and evaluate factors associated with use of both, one, or neither of these prevention methods. More than half (56%) of participants had neither been vaccinated nor used PrEP. A smaller percentage (34%) had either been vaccinated or were PrEP users, leaving 10% who had concomitant PrEP and MenACWY use. Higher education, more recent sex partners, illicit drug use, and recent receptive condomless anal sex (CAS) were significantly associated with greater odds of using both prevention methods relative to neither. Higher education, prior sexually transmitted infection diagnosis, more recent sex partners, and recent receptive CAS were significantly associated with greater odds of just PrEP use relative to neither. Higher education was the only factor significantly associated with greater odds of just MenACWY immunization relative to neither. Findings highlight important gaps in immunization among PrEP users and opportunities to screen for PrEP eligibility among GBMSM in conjunction with immunization. Public health practitioners should consider the ways in which strategies to increase PrEP and vaccine-preventable illnesses among GBMSM may complement one another.

Introduction: The essential components of a vaccine delivery system are well-documented, but robust evidence on how and why the related processes and implementation strategies prove effective at driving coverage is not well-established. To address this gap, we identified critical success factors associated with advancing key policies and programs that may have led to the substantial changes in routine childhood immunization coverage in Zambia between 2000 and 2018. Methods: We identified Zambia as an exemplar in the delivery of childhood vaccines through analysis of DTP1 and DTP3 coverage data. Through interviews and focus group discussions at the national and subnational levels, we investigated factors that contributed to high and sustained vaccination coverage. We conducted a thematic analysis through application of implementation science frameworks to determine critical success factors. We triangulated these findings with quantitative analyses using publicly available data. Results: The following success factors emerged: 1) the Inter-agency Coordinating Committee was strengthened for long-term engagement which, complemented by the Zambia Immunization Technical Advisory Group, is valued by the government and integrated into national-level decision-making; 2) the Ministry of Health improved the coordination of data collection and review for informed decision-making across all levels; 3) Regional multi-actor committees identified development priorities, strategies, and funding, and iteratively adjusted policies to account for facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned; 4) Vaccine messaging was disseminated through multiple channels, including the media and community leaders, increasing trust in the government by community members; 5) The Zambia Ministry of Health and Churches Health Association of Zambia formalized a long-term organizational relationship to leverage the strengths of faith-based organizations; and 6) Neighborhood Health Committees spearheaded community-driven strategies via community action planning and ultimately strengthened the link between communities and health facilities. Conclusion: Broader health systems strengthening and strong partnerships between various levels of the government, communities, and external organizations were critical factors that accelerated vaccine coverage in Zambia. These partnerships were leveraged to strengthen the overall health system and healthcare governance.

Vaccination to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and associated cancers has been recommended for use in the US since 2006; however, vaccine uptake remains suboptimal. Many sociodemographic factors have been evaluated with regard to HPV vaccine uptake but there has been less focus on the role of religion and religiosity. Our qualitative case study aimed to identify community perceptions of HPV and HPV vaccination via seven focus group discussions (FGDs) with leaders and members of an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church in metro-Atlanta, Georgia from April 2018 to July 2018. A Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) conceptual framework was used to identify potential avenues to strengthen communication and health promotion strategies in the church community. Results showed diverse perceptions about HPV vaccine amongst the church community, ranging from viewing the HPV vaccine as essential to unnecessary for adolescents. Two key barriers to the HPV vaccine that may be addressed through the SBCC strategies were identified: 1) general mistrust in the healthcare system and 2) the expectation of abstinence among adolescents. For future HPV prevention opportunities, congregants highlighted they would be more receptive to receiving HPV vaccine promotion messages from pre-established trustworthy sources. Church leaders hold the trust of their congregation, therefore implementation of a church-based intervention utilizing the SBCC strategies has considerable potential to transform perceptions of the HPV vaccine and increase vaccination uptake. These findings may be implemented in future HPV vaccine promotion strategies within faith-based communities to promote safe and open dialogue for health communication messages to be disseminated in a familiar and trusted setting.

Introduction Increases in global childhood vaccine delivery have led to decreases in morbidity from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, these improvements in vaccination have been heterogeneous, with some countries demonstrating greater levels of change and sustainability. Understanding what these high-performing countries have done differently and how their decision-making processes will support targeted improvements in childhood vaccine delivery. Methods and analysis We studied three countries - Nepal, Senegal, Zambia - with exemplary improvements in coverage between 2000 and 2018 as part of the Exemplars in Global Health Programme. We apply established implementation science frameworks to understand the € how' and € why' underlying improvements in vaccine delivery and coverage. Through mixed-methods research, we will identify drivers of catalytic change in vaccine coverage and the decision-making process supporting these interventions and activities. Methods include quantitative analysis of available datasets and in-depth interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in the global, national and subnational government and non-governmental organisation space, as well as community members and local health delivery system personnel. Ethics and dissemination Working as a multinational and multidisciplinary team, and under oversight from all partner and national-level (where applicable) institutional review boards, we collect data from participants who provided informed consent. Findings are disseminated through a variety of forms, including peer-reviewed manuscripts related to country-specific case studies and vaccine system domain-specific analyses, presentations to key stakeholders in the global vaccine delivery space and narrative dissemination on the Exemplars.Health website.

This paper introduces a framework for conducting and disseminating mixed methods research on positive outlier countries that successfully improved their health outcomes and systems. We provide guidance on identifying exemplar countries, assembling multidisciplinary teams, collecting and synthesising pre-existing evidence, undertaking qualitative and quantitative analyses, and preparing dissemination products for various target audiences. Through a range of ongoing research studies, we illustrate application of each step of the framework while highlighting key considerations and lessons learnt. We hope uptake of this comprehensive framework by diverse stakeholders will increase the availability and utilisation of rigorous and comparable insights from global health success stories.

Background While national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination estimates exist by sex, little is known about HPV vaccination rates by gender identity. Methods We conducted a self-administered, anonymous online cross-sectional survey, with recruitment through Facebook ads, of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in rural areas of the US. We compared HPV vaccine recommendation and uptake by self-reported sex assigned at birth and current gender identity. Results Six hundred sixty respondents were age eligible for HPV vaccination: 84% reported gender identity aligned with their sex assigned at birth, while 10% reported gender identity the differed from their sex assigned at birth; an additional 6% reported non-binary gender identity. Only 14% of male sex assigned at birth and 44% of female sex assigned at birth received HPV vaccine, similar to estimates by current gender identity. Transgender respondents’ HPV vaccination experience mirrored that of cisgender respondents with regard to sex assigned at birth. Conclusions Providers may base HPV vaccine recommendations on individuals’ sex assigned at birth, which may impact transgender individuals’ vaccine coverage. Future HPV vaccine uptake studies should account for gender identity. With sex-specific catch-up HPV vaccination recommendations, the role of gender identity on provider recommendation and reimbursement needs to be addressed.

Health care provider recommendations are among the most important factors influencing parents’ decisions to vaccinate their adolescents. However, delivery of high-quality health care provider recommendations for vaccination is not universal. There is wide variation in the strength, timeliness and consistency of the delivery of recommendations for all adolescent vaccines. The factors that influence health care providers’ recommendations are multi-level and can be conceptualized in much the same way as vaccine acceptance among parents. Health care providers are influenced by their own attitudes and beliefs about a vaccine and also by the patient they are treating and by the community in which they practice as well as state and national level vaccine policy. We propose a multi-level framework for understanding the factors that influence health care providers’ recommendations at the individual, interpersonal and community level to both develop and adapt interventions to improve providers’ recommendations.

In recent years, use of the Internet to obtain vaccine information has increased. Historical data are necessary to evaluate current vaccine information seeking trends in context. Between 2002 and 2003, surveys were mailed to 1,630 parents of fully vaccinated children and 815 parents of children with at least one vaccine exemption; 56.1% responded. Respondents were asked about their vaccine information sources, perceptions of these sources accuracy, and their beliefs about vaccination. Parents who did not view their child’s healthcare provider as a reliable vaccine information source were more likely to obtain vaccine information using the Internet. Parents who were younger, more highly educated, and opposed to school immunization requirements were more likely than their counterparts to use the Internet for vaccine information. Compared to parents who did not use the Internet for vaccine information, those who sought vaccine information on the Internet were more likely to have lower perceptions of vaccine safety (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.66; 95% CI, 1.18–2.35), vaccine effectiveness (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.32–2.53), and disease susceptibility (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49–2.90) and were more likely to have a child with a nonmedical exemption (aOR 3.53, 95% CI, 2.61–4.76). These findings provide context to interpret recent vaccine information seeking research.

None

Routine childhood immunizations are proven to be one of the most effective public health interventions at controlling numerous deadly diseases. Therefore, the CDC recommends routine immunizations for children and adolescent populations against vaccine-preventable diseases e.g., tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, etc. This current review sought to examine barriers to pediatric vaccine uptake behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored the implications for parental vaccine hesitancy/delay during an ongoing health crisis and proposed recommendations for increasing vaccine confidence and compliance. Our review determined that the receipt for vaccinations steadily improved in the last decade for both the United States and Tennessee. However, this incremental progress has been forestalled by the COVID-19 pandemic and other barriers i.e. parental vaccine hesitancy, social determinants of health (SDoH) inequalities, etc. which further exacerbate vaccination disparities. Moreover, non-compliance to routine vaccinations could cause an outbreak of diseases, thereby, worsening the ongoing health crisis and already strained health care system. Healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to offer effective recommendations with presumptive languaging to increase vaccination rates, as well as, address parental vaccine hesitancy. Best practices that incorporate healthcare providers’ quality improvement coaching, vaccination reminder recall systems, adherence to standardized safety protocols (physical distancing, hand hygiene practices, etc.), as well as, offer telehealth and outdoor/drive-through/curbside vaccination services, etc. are warranted. Additionally, a concerted effort should be made to utilize public health surveillance systems to collect, analyze, and interpret data, thereby, ensuring the dissemination of timely, accurate health information for effective health policy decision-making e.g., vaccine distribution, etc.