Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Background
Vaccine hesitancy has been a significant concern throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy can be attributed to lack of confidence in vaccines, complacency about the health threat, or lack of convenience of vaccination. To date, few studies have used methods designed to include populations underrepresented in research when identifying factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Methods
Between January and July 2021, potential participants were recruited from community venues selected through time-location sampling in 15 defined communities in the United States. Study staff administered a questionnaire on demographics, COVID-19 behaviors and attitudes, and vaccination status or intention to consenting individuals. Vaccine hesitancy was analyzed among those age 18 years and older from nine of the 15 sites and was defined as self-reported neutral, unlikely, or very unlikely vaccine intention. Logistic regression modeling, adjusted for site, identified factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Results
Among 11,559 individuals, vaccine hesitancy by site ranged from 8.7 to 31.1%. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with being Black compared to White, being White compared to Asian, younger age, unstable housing, being unemployed, lower income, having a disability, providing care in home, not reporting inability to visit sick or elderly relatives during the pandemic, not reporting increased anxiety during the pandemic, and not spending more time with loved ones during the pandemic.

Conclusions
In these selected US communities, early in vaccine rollout, there were significant racial disparities in vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, individuals who were more marginalized due to their socioeconomic status were more likely to report vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine campaigns should make efforts to remove barriers to vaccination, by improving convenience.

AbstractIntroductionSeveral low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are preparing to introduce long‐acting pre‐exposure prophylaxis (LAP). Amid multiple pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) options and constrained funding, decision‐makers could benefit from systematic implementation planning and aligned costs. We reviewed national costed implementation plans (CIPs) to describe relevant implementation inputs and activities (domains) for informing the costed rollout of LAP. We assessed how primary costing evidence aligned with those domains.MethodsWe conducted a rapid review of CIPs for oral PrEP and family planning (FP) to develop a consensus of implementation domains, and a scoping review across nine electronic databases for publications on PrEP costing in LMICs between January 2010 and June 2022. We extracted cost data and assessed alignment with the implementation domains and the Global Health Costing Consortium principles.ResultsWe identified 15 implementation domains from four national PrEP plans and FP‐CIP template; only six were in all sources. We included 66 full‐text manuscripts, 10 reported LAP, 13 (20%) were primary cost studies‐representing seven countries, and none of the 13 included LAP. The 13 primary cost studies included PrEP commodities (n = 12), human resources (n = 11), indirect costs (n = 11), other commodities (n = 10), demand creation (n = 9) and counselling (n = 9). Few studies costed integration into non‐HIV services (n = 5), above site costs (n = 3), supply chains and logistics (n = 3) or policy and planning (n = 2), and none included the costs of target setting, health information system adaptations or implementation research. Cost units and outcomes were variable (e.g. average per person‐year).DiscussionLAP planning will require updating HIV prevention policies, technical assistance for logistical and clinical support, expanding beyond HIV platforms, setting PrEP achievement targets overall and disaggregated by method, extensive supply chain and logistics planning and support, as well as updating health information systems to monitor multiple PrEP methods with different visit schedules. The 15 implementation domains were variable in reviewed studies. PrEP primary cost and budget data are necessary for new product introduction and should match implementation plans with financing.ConclusionsAs PrEP services expand to include LAP, decision‐makers need a framework, tools and a process to support countries in planning the systematic rollout and costing for LAP.