scholarly journals Does the light at the end of the tunnel shine for everyone? The need for early paediatric participation in vaccine trials during infectious pandemics

2021 ◽  
pp. 147775092110366
Author(s):  
Erin M Kwolek
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Vaccine Trial ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
The Public ◽  
Vaccine Trials ◽  
Significant Public Health ◽  
Community Trust

While most of the mortality associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been in elderly populations and adults with significant medical comorbidities, there has been death and morbidity in paediatric populations. As vaccine trial data is released to the public, many people look to the future with hope ; with good vaccine uptake there is the opportunity to reduce the spread of infectious pandemics. Initial vaccine trials were completed with adults and were expanded to include paediatric populations delaying paediatric COVID-19 vaccine initiatives. The exclusion of children from initial vaccine trials during a pandemic is not morally justifiable and fosters distrust with the pharmaceutical and medical industries and inevitably postpones vaccinating children when there is a surplus of available vaccines. The delayed vaccination of children under twelve may have significant public health and economic consequences as there may be ongoing viral transmission in the context of reopening strategies. The safety and efficacy of these candidate vaccines in children should be assessed expeditiously so that distribution to vulnerable paediatric populations is not impacted. Vaccine uptake compliance in the general population is important in establishing herd immunity and ensuring that there is thorough scientific evidence to support vaccination for children is important in establishing community trust

scholarly journals Myths Surrounding Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates: A Guide to Fight Back

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Zizzo
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Protective Measure ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Vaccine Candidates ◽  
The Public ◽  
News Organizations ◽  
Public Health Officials

The Covid-19 pandemic has propelled public health officials into the socio-political sphere due to the need for constantly updated information on behalf of the public. However, many individuals choose to acquire health information/guidance from indirect sources, including social media, news organizations, and general word of mouth. As a result, myths and false narratives about various essential health topics, including vaccine characteristics and protective measures, can circulate un-verified between millions of individuals with little recourse. These can further widen the “gap” between public knowledge and current research, resulting in lower vaccine uptake (vaccine hesitancy) and protective measure adherence. Such actions have profound implications as nations attempt to achieve herd immunity and end the pandemic once and for all. Thus, it is vital that public health officials, health providers, researchers, and the general public be able to differentiate common Covid-19 myths from facts and be prepared to approach such interactions via sound reasoning and research-based evidence. This chapter will serve as a guide to accomplish just that.

scholarly journals Targeting COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Minority Populations in the US: Implications for Herd Immunity

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 489
Author(s):  
James E. K. Hildreth ◽  
Donald J. Alcendor
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Virus Transmission ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Culturally Competent ◽  
Vaccine Trials ◽  
The Us

There has been a continuous underrepresentation of minorities in healthcare research and vaccine trials, along with long-standing systemic racism and discrimination that have been fueling the distrust of the healthcare system among these communities for decades. The history and legacy of racial injustices and negative experiences within a culturally insensitive healthcare system have greatly contributed to vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minorities. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccine uptake in the US, subsequently hindering the establishment of herd immunity (75–85% of the population vaccinated) to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. Information targeting underserved racial/ethnic minorities in the US in a culturally competent manner has been lacking. This information is crucial for educating these communities about COVID-19 vaccines and their distribution as well as dispelling misinformation regarding vaccine trials, safety, and efficacy. This lack of education has greatly contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and will increase disparities in vaccine uptake. Moreover, timely vaccinations are also essential to curtailing virus transmission and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that may evade the immune response produced by the three existing COVID-19 vaccines.

scholarly journals Are We Ready for the Arrival of the New COVID-19 Vaccinations? Great Promises and Unknown Challenges Still to Come

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Davide Gori ◽  
Chiara Reno ◽  
Daniel Remondini ◽  
Francesco Durazzi ◽  
Maria Pia Fantini
Keyword(s):  
Herd Immunity ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Come ◽  
Vaccination Campaigns ◽  
The Eu

While the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to strike and collect its death toll throughout the globe, as of 31 January 2021, the vaccine candidates worldwide were 292, of which 70 were in clinical testing. Several vaccines have been approved worldwide, and in particular, three have been so far authorized for use in the EU. Vaccination can be, in fact, an efficient way to mitigate the devastating effect of the pandemic and offer protection to some vulnerable strata of the population (i.e., the elderly) and reduce the social and economic burden of the current crisis. Regardless, a question is still open: after vaccination availability for the public, will vaccination campaigns be effective in reaching all the strata and a sufficient number of people in order to guarantee herd immunity? In other words: after we have it, will we be able to use it? Following the trends in vaccine hesitancy in recent years, there is a growing distrust of COVID-19 vaccinations. In addition, the online context and competition between pro- and anti-vaxxers show a trend in which anti-vaccination movements tend to capture the attention of those who are hesitant. Describing this context and analyzing its possible causes, what interventions or strategies could be effective to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy? Will social media trend analysis be helpful in trying to solve this complex issue? Are there perspectives for an efficient implementation of COVID-19 vaccination coverage as well as for all the other vaccinations?

scholarly journals The problems of increasing transparency on uncertainty

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magda Osman ◽  
Amanda J. Heath ◽  
Ragnar Löfstedt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
And Control ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Practical Implications

Public regulators (such as European Food Safety Authority, European Medicines Agency, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) are placing increasing demands on scientists to make uncertainties about their evidence transparent to the public. The stated goal is utilitarian, to inform and empower the public and ensure the accountability of policy and decision-making around the use of scientific evidence. However, it is questionable what constitutes uncertainty around the evidence on any given topic, and, while the goal is laudable, we argue the drive to increase transparency on uncertainty of the scientific process specifically does more harm than good, and may not serve the interests of those intended. While highlighting some of the practical implications of making uncertainties transparent using current guidelines, the aim is to discuss what could be done to make it worthwhile for both public and scientists.

A Connecticut healthcare system’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-202
Author(s):  
Jane Keating, MD ◽  
Lenworth Jacobs, MD, MPH, DSc, FACS, FWACS ◽  
Daniel Ricaurte, MD ◽  
Rocco Orlando, MD ◽  
Ajay Kumar, MD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New England ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Emergency Operations ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
The Public ◽  
At Risk Populations

Connecticut was impacted severely and early on by the COVID-19 pandemic due to the state’s proximity to New York City. Hartford Healthcare (HHC), one of the largest healthcare systems in New England, became integral in the state’s response with a robust emergency management system already in place. In this manuscript, we review HHC’s prepandemic emergency operations as well as the response of the system-wide Office of Emergency Management to the initial news of the virus and throughout the evolving pandemic. Additionally, we discuss the unique acquisition of vital critical care resources and personal protective equipment, as well as the hospital personnel distribution in response to the shifting demands of the virus. The public testing and vaccination efforts, with early consideration for at risk populations, are described as well as ethical considerations of scarce resources. To date, the vaccination effort resulted in over 70 percent of the adult population being vaccinated and with 10 percent of the population having been infected, herd immunity is eminent. Finally, the preparation for reestablishing elective procedures while experiencing a second wave of the pandemic is discussed. These descriptions may be useful for other healthcare systems in both preparation and response for future catastrophic emergencies of all types.

The 2016 RANZCP Guidelines for the Management of Schizophrenia and Related Disorders – what’s next?

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 600-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assen Jablensky ◽  
David J Castle ◽  
Frances Dark ◽  
Verity Humberstone ◽  
Eoin Killackey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
The Public ◽  
Measuring Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Personalised Treatment

Objectives: The recently published RANZCP guidelines for schizophrenia and related disorders reviewed recent scientific evidence, and, where lacking, referred to clinical expertise to supply a template for raising the standard of care. This paper builds on the guidelines and recommends how they might be used to improve outcomes. Methods: The guidelines call for evidence-based mental health policies, inclusive of mobilising affected families, communities and the public in support of policies that ensure better care and protect the wellbeing of people with severe mental disorders. The process of preparing the guidelines highlighted the limits of our scientific understanding of schizophrenia and shortcomings in the care currently provided. Results: Writing the guidelines evinced the need for a culture of measuring outcomes and response to treatment, and harnessing such data to monitoring and optimising patient care. Conclusions: We recommend creation of a national case cohort for mental health research involving a collaborative network of clinical research centres, using the guidelines and generating scientific evidence for translation into clinical practice protocols that enable personalised treatment plans for patients and criteria for the performance of clinical services.

scholarly journals “Why Don’t You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?”: Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 525-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siyabonga Thabethe ◽  
Catherine Slack ◽  
Graham Lindegger ◽  
Abigail Wilkinson ◽  
Douglas Wassenaar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vaccine Trial ◽  
Hiv Vaccine ◽  
Community Advisory Board ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Hiv Vaccine Trials ◽  
Vaccine Trials ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Site Staff

Trust is a key element of high-quality stakeholder relations, which are themselves essential for the success of HIV vaccine trials. Where trust is absent, community stakeholders might not volunteer to become involved in key trial activities, and potential participants might not volunteer for enrollment. We explored site staff and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members’ experiences of trust/mistrust among community members and potential participants. We analyzed 10 focus group discussions with site staff and CAB members at two active South African HIV vaccine trial sites. We report on key characteristics perceived to contribute to the trustworthiness of communicators, as well as factors associated with mistrust. Attributes associated with trustworthy communicators included shared racial identity, competence, and independence (not being “captured”). Key foci for mistrust included explanations about site selection, stored samples, vaccination, and Vaccine Induced Sero-Positivity (VISP). Our findings suggest that community members’ trust is not necessarily global, in which trials are trusted or not; rather, it appears fairly nuanced and is impacted by various perceived attributes of communicators and the information they provide. We make recommendations for clinical trial site stakeholders invested in building trust and for future research into trust at these sites.

scholarly journals Waning of Maternal Antibodies against Measles Suggests a Large Window of Susceptibility in Infants in Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Pathogens ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1316
Author(s):  
Phonepaseuth Khampanisong ◽  
Maude Pauly ◽  
Phonethipsavanh Nouanthong ◽  
Molly A. Vickers ◽  
Siriphone Virachith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Maternal Antibodies ◽  
Lao People’S Democratic Republic ◽  
Lao People's Democratic Republic ◽  
Young Infants ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Serious Disease

Introduction: Measles is an endemic but largely neglected disease in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. New-borns are protected by maternal antibodies, but antibody waning before measles vaccination at 9 months of age leaves infants susceptible to infection. In this study, the susceptibility window of infants was determined to generate scientific evidence to assess the national measles immunization strategy. Methods: Between 2015 and 2016, demographic data, medical history, and blood samples were collected from 508 mother-child pairs at the provincial hospital in Vientiane. The samples were screened with a commercial kit detecting anti-measles IgG antibodies. Results: The large majority (95.7%) of the mothers were seropositive for anti-measles IgG and antibody titers of the mothers and infants were highly correlated (p < 0.01). While at birth 97.7% of the infants were seropositive, seropositivity rates decreased to 74.2% two months later to reach only 28.2% four months after birth (p < 0.01). Just before the first dose of the measles-rubella vaccine, scheduled at 9 months of age, was actually given, less than 14% of the infants were seropositive. Conclusions: This alarmingly wide susceptibility gap due to rapid maternal antibody decay leaves infants at risk of measles infection and serious disease complications. A high herd immunity is crucial to protect young infants and can be achieved through improved routine vaccination coverage and (expanded age group) supplementary immunization activities.

scholarly journals Age- and gender-dependent differences in attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and underlying psychological processes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiko Tanaka ◽  
Tsuyoshi Nihonsugi ◽  
Fumio Ohtake ◽  
Masahiko Haruno
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Japanese People ◽  
Age And Gender ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Positive Effect

Abstract The most promising way to prevent the explosive spread of COVID-19 infection is to achieve herd immunity through vaccination. It is therefore important to motivate those who are less willing to be vaccinated. To address this issue, we conducted an online survey of 6232 Japanese people to investigate age- and gender- dependent differences in attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and the underlying psychological processes. We asked participants to read one of nine different messages about COVID-19 vaccination and rate their willingness to be vaccinated. We also collected their 17 social personality trait scores and demographic information. We found that males 10-20 years old showed the minimum willingness to be vaccinated. We also found that prosocial traits are the driving force for young people, but the motivation in older people also depends on risk aversion and self-interest. Furthermore, an analysis of 9 different messages demonstrated that for young people (particularly males), the message emphasizing the majority’s intention to vaccinate and scientific evidence for the safety of the vaccination had the strongest positive effect on the willingness to be vaccinated, suggesting that the herding effect arising from the “majority + scientific evidence” message nudges young people to show their prosocial nature in action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document