Search results

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O'Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews' guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available? Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ...

Background Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) poses a substantial burden in sub-Saharan Africa and is the leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. We aimed to describe published TB treatment trials conducted in Africa. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of published TB trials conducted in at least one African country. In November 2019, we searched three databases using the validated Africa search filter and Cochrane's sensitive trial string. Published RCTs conducted in at least one African country were included for analysis. Records were screened for eligibility. Co-reviewers assisted with duplicate data extraction. Extracted data included: the country where studies were conducted, publication dates, ethics statement, trial registration number, participant's age range. We used Cochrane's Risk of Bias criteria to assess methodological quality. Results We identified 10,495 records; 175 trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were published between 1952 and 2019. The median sample size was 206 participants (interquartile range: 73–657). Most trials were conducted in South Africa (n = 83) and were drug therapy trials (n = 130). First authors were from 30 countries globally. South Africa had the most first authors (n = 55); followed by the United States of America (USA) (n = 28) and Great Britain (n = 14) with fewer other African countries contributing to the first author tally. Children under 13 years of age eligible to participate in the trials made up 17/175 trials (9.71%). International governments (n = 29) were the most prevalent funders. Ninety-four trials provided CONSORT flow diagrams. Methodological quality such as allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported or unclear in most trials. Conclusions By mapping African TB trials, we were able to identify potential research gaps. Many of the global north's researchers were found to be the lead authors in these African trials. Few trials tested behavioural interventions compared to drugs, and far fewer tested interventions on children compared to adults to improve TB outcomes. Lastly, funders and researchers should ensure better methodological quality reporting of trials.