INTRODUCTION: The current literature suggests that the frequency and complexity of public health emergencies are rising and this trend will likely continue. From 2000 to 2023, seven events have been declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO). Organisational models such as the Incident Management System, Incident Response System and Incident Command System or country-specific models are essential in managing PHEIC.The review aims to achieve four key objectives. First, identify and describe the organisational models used in the South-East Asia Region (SEAR) nations defined by WHO as Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste and DPR Korea for managing PHEICs. Second, explore the indicators used to gauge the effectiveness of these models. Third, assess how these indicators impact the overall success of organisational models. Finally, the review will delve into the implementation aspects gaining a deeper understanding of how the organisational models are put into practice to manage PHEICs in the SEAR region. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines, a qualitative evidence synthesis will be conducted. A defined search strategy will be employed to conduct a comprehensive literature search of the following academic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, WHO Library Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and Web of Science; as well as non-academic databases including Google Scholar, Evidence Aid, Epistemonikos, Shodhganga and ResearchGate. This review will employ the SPIDER-D tool for searching qualitative studies. Two reviewers will check the quality of included studies and will be appraised using standard critical appraisal tools. In case of any difference between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will take the decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through a workshop for stakeholders and policymakers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023394418.

This report updates the 2023-24 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;72[No. RR-2]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3s), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), and trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3) are expected to be available. All persons should receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine (i.e., one approved for their age), with the exception that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens may receive either high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) or adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) as acceptable options (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3). Except for vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed and recommended vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: trivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), or trivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used.Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: the composition of 2024-25 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and updated recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients. First, following a period of no confirmed detections of wild-type influenza B/Yamagata lineage viruses in global surveillance since March 2020, 2024-25 U.S. influenza vaccines will not include an influenza B/Yamagata component. All influenza vaccines available in the United States during the 2024-25 season will be trivalent vaccines containing hemagglutinin derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); and 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus. Second, recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients have been updated to include HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 as acceptable options for solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3).This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2024-25 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/flu.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

INTRODUCTION: the increasing number of people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa has stressed already overburdened health systems. A care model utilizing community-based peer-groups (ART Co-ops) facilitated by community health workers (CHW) was implemented (2016-2018) to address these challenges. In 2018, a post-intervention study assessed perceptions of the intervention. METHODS: forty participants were engaged in focus group discussions consisting of ART Co-op clients, study staff, and health care providers from Kitale HIV clinic. Data were analyzed thematically for content on the intervention, challenges, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: all participants liked the intervention. However, some reported traveling long distances to attend ART Co-op meetings and experiencing stigma with ART Co-ops participation. The ART Co-op inclusion criteria were considered appropriate; however, additional outreach to deliberately include spouses living with HIV, the disabled, the poor, and HIV pregnant women was recommended. Participants liked CHW-directed quarterly group meetings which included ART distribution, adherence review, and illness identification. The inability of the CHW to provide full clinical care, inconvenient meeting venues, poor timekeeping, and non-attendance behaviors were noted as issues. Participants indicated that program continuation, regular CHW training, rotating meetings at group members´ homes, training ART Co-ops leaders to assume CHW tasks, use of pill diaries to check adherence, nutritional support, and economically empowering members through income generation projects would be beneficial. CONCLUSION: the intervention was viewed positively by both clinic staff and clients. They identified specific challenges and generated actionable key considerations to improve access and acceptability of the community-based model of care.

Abstract Community-based organizations (CBOs) fill a critical role in acting as public health partners and trusted resources for their communities, especially in an emergency. The CDC Foundation, an independent, nonprofit organization, used trust-based philanthropy to manage more than 110 COVID-19 grants focused on equitable vaccine information, outreach, and access. The CDC Foundation team uses a trust-based philanthropy paradigm by applying five out of six of the grantmaking practices: do the homework; simplify and streamline paperwork; be transparent and responsive; solicit and act on feedback; and offer support beyond the check. By applying trust-based philanthropy practices, the CDC Foundation is empowering CBOs through flexible grant management and more equitable power dynamics as grantee and grantor. This has been essential to CBOs in their efforts of tackling health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic and improving community resilience. Lessons learned will inform future collaborations with CBOs where the power dynamics are shared.

India has the largest number of multidrug-resistant TB | (MDR-TB) cases, defined as Mycobacterium tuberculosis | resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (RIF).1 | However, less than half of all persons with MDR-TB in | India successfully complete treatment.1 Although initial | end-of-treatment outcomes offer a standardised time point | to assess the effect of treatment, these tend to | underestimate the overall burden of unfavourable longterm outcomes among persons treated for TB.2,3 The longterm outcomes of persons diagnosed with MDR-TB in | India, including the proportion with recurrent TB disease | or mortality, are unknown. This analysis was conducted | under programmatic conditions in a high-burden setting, | with no regular check-ups after treatment. The results can | be used to show the burden of recurrent illness and death | following treatment, and can be used as a benchmark to | measure improvement.

This report updates the 2012 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2012;61:613-8). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥ 6 months. For the 2013-14 influenza season, it is expected that trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3) will be replaced by a quadrivalent LAIV formulation (LAIV4). Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) will be available in both trivalent (IIV3) and quadrivalent (IIV4) formulations. Vaccine virus strains included in the 2013-14 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like virus, an H3N2 virus antigenically like the cell-propagated prototype virus A/Victoria/361/2011, and a B/Massachusetts/2/2012-like virus. Quadrivalent vaccines will include an additional influenza B virus strain, a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus, intended to ensure that both influenza B virus antigenic lineages (Victoria and Yamagata) are included in the vaccine. This report describes recently approved vaccines, including LAIV4, IIV4, trivalent cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV3), and trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3). No preferential recommendation is made for one influenza vaccine product over another for persons for whom more than one product is otherwise appropriate. This information is intended for vaccination providers, immunization program personnel, and public health personnel. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates also will be found at this website. Vaccination and health-care providers should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

This report updates previous recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of antiviral agents for the prevention and treatment of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]).This report contains information on treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza virus infection and provides a summary of the effectiveness and safety of antiviral treatment medications. Highlights include recommendations for use of 1) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons with severe influenza (e.g., those who have severe, complicated, or progressive illness or who require hospitalization); 2) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons at higher risk for influenza complications; and 3) either oseltamivir or zanamivir for persons with influenza caused by 2009 H1N1 virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, or influenza B virus or when the influenza virus type or influenza A virus subtype is unknown; 4) antiviral medications among children aged <1 year; 5) local influenza testing and influenza surveillance data, when available, to help guide treatment decisions; and 6) consideration of antiviral treatment for outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza who do not have known risk factors for severe illness, if treatment can be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset. Additional information is available from CDC's influenza website at http://www.cdc.gov/flu, including any updates or supplements to these recommendations that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season. Health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information. Recommendations related to the use of vaccines for the prevention of influenza during the 2010-11 influenza season have been published previously (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2010. MMWR 2010;59[No. RR-8]).

This report updates the 2009 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-8] and CDC. Use of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine---recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2009. MMWR 2009;58:[No. RR-10]). The 2010 influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2010 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all persons aged >or=6 months for the 2010-11 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that children aged 6 months--8 years whose vaccination status is unknown or who have never received seasonal influenza vaccine before (or who received seasonal vaccine for the first time in 2009-10 but received only 1 dose in their first year of vaccination) as well as children who did not receive at least 1 dose of an influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine regardless of previous influenza vaccine history should receive 2 doses of a 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine (minimum interval: 4 weeks) during the 2010--11 season; 3) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2010-11 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like (the same strain as was used for 2009 H1N1 monovalent vaccines), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; 4) information about Fluzone High-Dose, a newly approved vaccine for persons aged >or=65 years; and 5) information about other standard-dose newly approved influenza vaccines and previously approved vaccines with expanded age indications. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as the 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season also will be available at this website. Recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2010-11 influenza season. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

This report updates the 2008 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]). Information on vaccination issues related to the recently identified novel influenza A H1N1 virus will be published later in 2009. The 2009 seasonal influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2009 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all children aged 6 months-18 years for the 2009-10 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2009-10 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like, A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; and 3) a notice that recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2009-10 influenza season. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. Approximately 83% of the United States population is specifically recommended for annual vaccination against seasonal influenza; however, <40% of the U.S. population received the 2008-09 influenza vaccine. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S. licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2009-10 influenza season also can be found at this website. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

INTRODUCTION: We examined national estimates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test use and compared them with Healthy People 2030 national targets. Test use in 2021 was compared with prepandemic estimates. METHODS: In 2022, we used 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data to estimate proportions of adults up to date with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast (women aged 50-74 y), cervical (women aged 21-65 y), and CRC screening (adults aged 50-75 y) across sociodemographic and health care access variables. We compared age-standardized estimates from the 2021 and 2019 NHIS. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date in 2021 were 75.7% (95% CI, 74.4%-76.9%), 75.2% (95% CI, 73.9%-76.4%), and 72.2% (95% CI, 71.2%-73.2%) for breast, cervical, and CRC screening, respectively. Estimates were below 50% among those without a wellness check in 3 years (all screening types), among those without a usual source of care or insurance (aged <65 y) (breast and CRC screening), and among those residing in the US for less than 10 years (CRC screening). Percentages of adults who were up to date with breast and cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy were similar in 2019 and 2021. Fecal occult blood/fecal immunochemical test (FOBT/FIT) use was modestly higher in 2021 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In 2021, approximately 1 in 4 adults of screening age were not up to date with breast, cervical, and CRC screening recommendations, and Healthy People 2030 national targets were not met. Disparities existed across several characteristics, particularly those related to health care access. Breast, cervical, and colonoscopy test use within recommended screening intervals approximated prepandemic levels. FOBT/FIT estimates were modestly higher in 2021.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused substantial morbidity and mortality.Objectives To describe monthly demographic and clinical trends among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.Design Pooled cross-sectional.Setting 99 counties within 14 states participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET).Patients U.S. adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March 1-December 31, 2020.Measurements Monthly trends in weighted percentages of interventions and outcomes including length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit admissions (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), vasopressor use and in-hospital death (death). Monthly hospitalization, ICU and death rates per 100,000 population.Results Among 116,743 hospitalized adults, median age was 62 years. Among 18,508 sampled adults, median LOS decreased from 6.4 (March) to 4.6 days (December). Remdesivir and systemic corticosteroid use increased from 1.7% and 18.9% (March) to 53.8% and 74.2% (December), respectively. Frequency of ICU decreased from 37.8% (March) to 20.5% (December). IMV (27.8% to 8.7%), vasopressors (22.7% to 8.8%) and deaths (13.9% to 8.7%) decreased from March to October; however, percentages of these interventions and outcomes remained stable or increased in November and December. Percentage of deaths significantly decreased over time for non-Hispanic White patients (p-value &lt;0.01) but not non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic patients. Rates of hospitalization (105.3 per 100,000), ICU (20.2) and death (11.7) were highest during December.Limitations COVID-NET covers approximately 10% of the U.S. population; findings may not be generalizable to the entire country.Conclusions After initial improvement during April-October 2020, trends in interventions and outcomes worsened during November-December, corresponding with the 3rd peak of the U.S. pandemic. These data provide a longitudinal assessment of trends in COVID-19-associated outcomes prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccine implementation.Competing Interest StatementDr. Evan Anderson reports grants from Pfizer, grants from Merck, grants from PaxVax, grants from Micron, grants from Sanofi-Pasteur, grants from Janssen, grants from MedImmune, grants from GSK, personal fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Medscape, personal fees from Kentucky Bioprocessing, Inc, personal fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, outside the submitted work. Dr. William Schaffner reports personal fees from VBI Vaccines, outside the submitted work. Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention through an Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreement (grant CK17-1701) and through a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists cooperative agreement (grant NU38OT000297-02-00).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. Sites participating in COVID-NET obtained approval from their respective state and local Institutional Review Boards, as applicable.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting check ist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesPublicly available data referred to in this analysis can be found at: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have indicated the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted routine vaccinations. This study describes the prevalence and characteristics of children and adolescents experiencing disrupted routine vaccination and other medical visits in the United States between January and June 2021. METHODS: The National Immunization Surveys were the source of data for this cross-sectional analysis (n= 86,893). Parents/guardians of children aged 6 months through 17 years were identified through random digit dialing of cellular phone numbers and interviewed. Disrupted visits were assessed by asking, "In the last two months, was a medical check-up, well child visit, or vaccination appointment for the child delayed, missed, or not scheduled for any reason?" Respondents answering yes were asked "Was it because of COVID-19?" Sociodemographic characteristics of children/adolescents with (1) COVID-19-related missed visits and (2) non-COVID-19-related missed visits were examined. Statistical differences within demographic subgroups were determined using t-tests, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Linear regression models were used to examine trends in disrupted visits over time. RESULTS: An estimated 7.9% of children/adolescents had a missed visit attributed to COVID-19; 5.2% had a missed visit that was not COVID-19-related. Among children/adolescents with a COVID-19-related missed visit, a higher percentage were of minority race or ethnicity, lived below the poverty level, had a mother without a college degree, and lived in the western United States. There was a significant decline in COVID-19-related missed visits over time. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 disrupted routine vaccination or other medical visits inequitably. Catch-up immunizations are essential for achieving adequate vaccination of all children/adolescents.

Adaptive design principles are applied to the National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen), sponsored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors vaccination coverage of U.S. adolescents age 13-17 years. Data collection is ongoing in two phases: (1) a random-digit-dial telephone survey to interview parents/guardians with age-eligible adolescents, followed by (2) a mail survey to vaccination providers, called the provider record check (PRC), to obtain vaccination histories for the adolescents. A logistic regression model relating the probability that an Immunization History Questionnaire (IHQ) is returned for a teen-provider pair to characteristics of the adolescent, mother, household, and providers was fit. R-indicators and partial R-indicators for the PRC phase of the 2015 NIS-Teen are presented to evaluate the representativeness of response in the PRC. The indicators are visualized using interactive graphics embodied in an R Shiny application to track the real time changes. Programmatic interventions to improve representativeness are discussed, which include strategies for prompting providers and special treatment of certain subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety and pain management, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (CDC Guideline). Recognizing that issuing a guideline alone is insufficient for transforming practice, CDC supported an Opioid Quality Improvement (QI) Collaborative, consisting of 10 health care systems that represented more than 120 practices across the United States. The research team identified factors related to implementation success using domains described by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) implementation science framework. METHODS: Data from interviews, notes from check-in calls, and documents provided by systems were used. The researchers collected data throughout the project through interviews, meeting notes, and documents. RESULTS: The iPARIHS framework was used to identify factors that affected implementation related to the context, innovation (implementing recommendations from the CDC Guideline), recipient (clinicians), and facilitation (QI team). Contextual characteristics were at the clinic, health system, and broader external context, including staffing and leadership support, previous QI experience, and state laws. Characteristics of the innovation were its adaptability and challenges operationalizing the measures. Recipient characteristics included belief in the importance of the innovation but challenges engaging in the initiative. Finally, facilitation characteristics driving differential outcomes included staffing and available time of the QI team, the ability to make changes, and experience with QI. CONCLUSION: As health care systems continue to implement the CDC Guideline, these insights can advance successful implementation efforts by describing common implementation challenges and identifying strategies to prepare for and overcome them.

Laboratories that run Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) produce a tremendous amount of data, up to 10 gigabytes for some common instruments. There is a need to standardize the quality assurance and quality control process (QA/QC). Therefore we have created SneakerNet to automate the QA/QC for WGS.

Pilot studies to detect newborns with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) have been conducted under the New York State Newborn Screening Program (NYS) and are currently in progress as part of the Early Check Program at Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International. The Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program (NSQAP) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) produced a set of seven prototype dried blood spot (DBS) reference materials spiked with varying levels of creatine kinase MM isoform (CK-MM). These DBS were evaluated over a 3-week period by CDC, NYS, and RTI, all using the same CK-MM isoform-specific fluoroimmunoassay. Results from each laboratory were highly correlated with the relative proportion of CK-MM added to each of the six spiked pools. Based on reference ranges established by NYS and RTI for their pilot studies, these contrived DBS collectively spanned the CK-MM ranges found in typical newborns and the elevated ranges associated with DMD. This set allows quality assessment over the wide range of fluctuating CK-MM levels in typical and DMD-affected newborns.

CONTEXT: Digital video-based behavioral interventions are effective tools for improving HIV care and treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs of the Positive Health Check (PHC) intervention delivered in HIV primary care settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND INTERVENTION: The PHC study was a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a highly tailored, interactive video-counseling intervention delivered in 4 HIV care clinics in the United States in improving viral suppression and retention in care. Eligible patients were randomized to either the PHC intervention or the control arm. Control arm participants received standard of care (SOC), and intervention arm participants received SOC plus PHC. The intervention was delivered on computer tablets in the clinic waiting rooms. The PHC intervention improved viral suppression among male participants. A microcosting approach was used to assess the program costs, including labor hours, materials and supplies, equipment, and office overhead. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with HIV infection, receiving care in participating clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of patients virally suppressed, defined as having fewer than 200 copies/mL by the end of their 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 397 (range across sites [range], 95-102) participants were enrolled in the PHC intervention arm, of whom 368 participants (range, 82-98) had viral load data at baseline and were included in the viral load analyses. Of those, 210 (range, 41-63) patients were virally suppressed at the end of their 12-month follow-up visit. The overall annual program cost was $402 274 (range, $65 581-$124 629). We estimated the average program cost per patient at $1013 (range, $649-$1259) and the cost per patient virally suppressed at $1916 (range, $1041-$3040). Recruitment and outreach costs accounted for 30% of PHC program costs. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of this interactive video-counseling intervention are comparable with other retention in care or reengagement interventions.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed and implemented the v-safe after vaccination health checker (v-safe) to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety and as an active surveillance supplement to existing CDC vaccine safety monitoring programs. V-safe allows persons who received COVID-19 vaccines to report on post-vaccination experiences and how symptoms affected their health at daily, weekly, and monthly timepoints after vaccination. Text message reminders are sent linking to Internet-based health check-in surveys. Surveys include questions to identify v-safe participants who may be eligible to enroll in a separate pregnancy registry activity that evaluates maternal and infant outcomes in those pregnant at the time of vaccination or receiving vaccine in the periconception period. We describe the development of and enhancements to v-safe, data management, promotion and communication to vaccination sites and partners, publications, strengths and limitations, and implications for future systems. We also describe enrollment in v-safe over time and demographics of persons participating in v-safe during the first year of operation (December 14, 2020 - December 13, 2021). During this time, 9,342,582 persons submitted 131,543,087 v-safe surveys. The majority of participants were female (62.3 %) and non-Hispanic White (61.2 %); median age was 49.0 years. Most participants reported receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as their first recorded dose (95.0 %). V-safe contributed to CDC's vaccine safety assessments for FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines by enabling near real-time reporting of reactogenicity once the COVID-19 vaccination program began in the community, encouraging reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and facilitating enrollment in a large post-vaccination pregnancy registry. Given that v-safe is an integral component of the most comprehensive safety monitoring program in U.S. history, we believe that this approach has promise as a potential application for future pandemic response activities as well as rollout of novel vaccines in a non-pandemic context.

Adeno-associated virus (AAV) based gene therapies are emerging strategies in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) treatment. Exposure to wild-type AAV can lead to development of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and block AAV transduction, thereby limiting the delivery of AAV vector-based gene therapy. Therefore, it is imperative to check for the presence of AAV NAbs in a patient who is a candidate for gene therapy. We prospectively enrolled 101 genetically confirmed males with DMD (median age 11 years, 48% ambulatory, 59% on steroids) and performed AAV neutralization assays against AAV2, AAV8, AAV9, and AAVrh74 serotypes. Serotype analysis showed AAV9 (36%) and AAVrh74 (32%) seroprevalence was lower compared to AAV2 (56%) and AAV8 (47%). Interestingly, age was not correlated with NAb titer for any of the capsids. NAb responses were observed at a higher frequency in African American participants and at a lower frequency for Caucasian participants for all four serotypes. Further analysis showed no significant differences in NAb titers depending, regardless of serotype, on whether participants were taking steroids. Finally, we observed higher AAV8, AAV9, and AAVrh74 seroprevalence and significantly higher AAV2 and AAV8 NAb titers in participants that were ambulatory compared to the non-ambulatory participants. Overall, these data identify AAV9 and AAVrh74 as the two serotypes with lower preexisting NAbs in this study's cohort of 101 males with DMD, possibly showing their utility for future gene therapy applications to treat this cohort men with DMD.

INTRODUCTION: Zambia has made tremendous progress towards HIV epidemic control; however, gaps remain among key populations (KPs), such as female sex workers (FSWs), men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID) and people in prisons and enclosed settings due to cultural, social and legal barriers. The University of Maryland, Baltimore Zambia Community HIV Epidemic Control for Key Populations (Z-CHECK) project aimed to improve HIV case-finding, linkage and treatment adherence at the community level for KPs in Zambia. We describe Z-CHECK strategies and examine HIV positivity yield and antiretroviral therapy (ART) linkage among KPs to inform ongoing programme improvement. METHODS: Z-CHECK recruited, trained and deployed peer community health workers (CHWs) for KP groups, with ongoing mentorship in community engagement. CHWs offered HIV testing in safe spaces and escorted newly HIV-diagnosed clients for same-day ART initiation. Z-CHECK also reached out to KP community leaders and gatekeepers for KP mobilization and trained healthcare workers (HCWs) on KP services and sensitivity. We conducted a retrospective observational review of routinely collected aggregate data for KPs aged ≥15 years at high risk for HIV transmission across five districts in Zambia from January 2019 to December 2020. RESULTS: Z-CHECK provided HIV testing for 9211 KPs, of whom 2227 were HIV positive (positivity yield, 24%). Among these, 1901 (85%) were linked to ART; linkage for MSM, FSW, PWID and people in prisons and enclosed settings was 95%, 89%, 86% and 65%, respectively. Programme strategies that contributed to high positivity yield and linkage included the use of peer KP CHWs, social network testing strategies and opportunities for same-day ART initiation. Challenges to programme implementation included stigma and discrimination among HCWs, as well as KP CHW attrition, which may be explained by high mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Peer CHWs were highly effective at reaching KP communities, identifying persons living with HIV and linking them to care. Engaging KP community gatekeepers resulted in high diffusion of health messages and increased access to health resources. The mobility of CHWs and HCWs is a challenge for programme implementation. Innovative interventions are needed to support PWID and people in prisons and enclosed settings.

THIS REPORT UPDATES THE 2021-22 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) CONCERNING THE USE OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES IN THE UNITED STATES: (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022-23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. INFLUENZA VACCINES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AS EARLY AS JULY OR AUGUST, BUT FOR MOST PERSONS WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE SEASON, VACCINATION SHOULD IDEALLY BE OFFERED DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. HOWEVER, VACCINATION SHOULD CONTINUE AFTER OCTOBER AND THROUGHOUT THE SEASON AS LONG AS INFLUENZA VIRUSES ARE CIRCULATING AND UNEXPIRED VACCINE IS AVAILABLE. FOR MOST ADULTS (PARTICULARLY ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS) AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS IN THE FIRST OR SECOND TRIMESTER, VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THERE IS CONCERN THAT VACCINATION LATER IN THE SEASON MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. CERTAIN CHILDREN AGED 6 MONTHS THROUGH 8 YEARS NEED 2 DOSES; THESE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST DOSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER VACCINE IS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING DURING JULY AND AUGUST. VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR CHILDREN OF ANY AGE WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE FOR THE SEASON AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IF VACCINE IS AVAILABLE DURING THOSE MONTHS: UPDATES DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT REFLECT DISCUSSIONS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF ACIP THAT WERE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2021; JANUARY 12, 2022; FEBRUARY 23, 2022; AND JUNE 22, 2022. PRIMARY UPDATES TO THIS REPORT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING THREE TOPICS: 1) THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES; 2) UPDATES TO THE DESCRIPTION OF INFLUENZA VACCINES EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2022-23 SEASON, INCLUDING ONE INFLUENZA VACCINE LABELING CHANGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE 2021-22 ACIP INFLUENZA RECOMMENDATIONS; AND 3) UPDATES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS. FIRST, THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. INFLUENZA VACCINES INCLUDES UPDATES TO THE INFLUENZA A(H3N2) AND INFLUENZA B/VICTORIA LINEAGE COMPONENTS. U.S.-LICENSED INFLUENZA VACCINES WILL CONTAIN HA DERIVED FROM AN INFLUENZA A/VICTORIA/2570/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/WISCONSIN/588/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/9/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/6/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA B/AUSTRIA/1359417/2021 (VICTORIA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS; AND AN INFLUENZA B/PHUKET/3073/2013 (YAMAGATA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS. SECOND, THE APPROVED AGE INDICATION FOR THE CELL CULTURE-BASED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE, FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT (CCIIV4), WAS CHANGED IN OCTOBER 2021 FROM ≥2 YEARS TO ≥6 MONTHS. THIRD, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. ACIP RECOMMENDS THAT ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS PREFERENTIALLY RECEIVE ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HIGHER DOSE OR ADJUVANTED INFLUENZA VACCINES: QUADRIVALENT HIGH-DOSE INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (HD-IIV4), QUADRIVALENT RECOMBINANT INFLUENZA VACCINE (RIV4), OR QUADRIVALENT ADJUVANTED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (AIIV4). IF NONE OF THESE THREE VACCINES IS AVAILABLE AT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VACCINE ADMINISTRATION, THEN ANY OTHER AGE-APPROPRIATE INFLUENZA VACCINE SHOULD BE USED: THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF VACCINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA DURING THE 2022-23 INFLUENZA SEASON IN THE UNITED STATES. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND A LINK TO THE MOST RECENT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT CONTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether Positive Health Check, a highly tailored video doctor intervention, can improve viral suppression and retention in care. SETTING: Four clinics that deliver HIV primary care. METHODS: A hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized trial design was used to test study hypotheses. Participants (N = 799) who were not virally suppressed, were new to care, or had fallen out of care were randomly assigned to receive Positive Health Check or the standard of care alone. The primary endpoint was viral load suppression, and the secondary endpoint was retention in care, both assessed at 12 months, using an intention-to-treat approach. A priori subgroup analyses based on sex assigned at birth and race were examined as well. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between Positive Health Check (N = 397) and standard of care (N = 402) for either endpoint. However, statistically significant group differences were identified from a priori subgroup analyses. Male participants receiving Positive Health Check were more likely to achieve suppression at 12 months than male participants receiving standard of care adjusted risk ratio [aRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.14 (1.00 to 1.29), P = 0.046}. For retention in care, there was a statistically significant lower risk for a 6-month visit gap in the Positive Health Check arm for the youngest participants, 18-29 years old [aRR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.33 to 0.92), P = 0.024] and the oldest participants, 60-81 years old [aRR (95% CI) = 0.49 (0.30 to 0.81), P = 0.006]. CONCLUSIONS: Positive Health Check may help male participants with HIV achieve viral suppression, and younger and older patients consistently attend HIV care. REGISTRY NAME: Positive Health Check Evaluation Trial. Trial ID: 1U18PS004967-01. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03292913.

Positive Health Check (PHC), an interactive, web-based intervention, provides tailored behavioral health messages to support people with HIV in their HIV care. Users interact with a virtual doctor and based on responses to tailoring questions, PHC delivers relevant content modules addressing treatment initiation, medication adherence, retention in care, sexual risk reduction, mother-to-child transmission, and injection drug use. During a one-month feasibility pilot of PHC, patients in four HIV primary care clinics were invited to use PHC and tool usage metrics were collected and assessed. Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterize how the tool was used based on behavioral risk scenarios presented.Ninety-seven patients accessed PHC as part of the pilot, with 68 (70.1%) completing the intervention on average in 15 min. Out of 85 patients who viewed behavioral tips and commitments, 66 (77.7%) selected at least one tip to practice and 41 (48.2%) made at least one commitment to ask their provider a question. Patients spent the most time with adherence and sexual risk reduction content. The high level of tool engagement suggests that PHC was acceptable to patients regardless of length of time since diagnosis. PHC can be completed within a single visit and is a promising tool for PWH.

BACKGROUND: Positive Health Check (PHC) is an evidenced-based video doctor intervention developed for improving the medication adherence, retention in care, and viral load suppression of people with HIV receiving clinical care. SETTING: Four HIV primary care clinics within the United States. METHODS: As part of a type 1 hybrid trial, a mixed-methods approach was used to longitudinally assess the following 3 key implementation constructs over a 23-month period: innovation-values fit (ie, the extent to which staff perceive innovation use will foster the fulfillment of their values), organizational readiness for change (ie, the extent to which organizational members are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to implement organizational change), and implementation climate (ie, the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded). Quantitative mixed-effects regression analyses were conducted to assess changes over time in these constructs. Qualitative analyses were integrated to help provide validation and understanding. RESULTS: Innovation-values fit and organizational readiness for change were found to be high and relatively stable. However, significant curvilinear change over time was found for implementation climate. Based on the qualitative data, implementation climate declined toward the end of implementation due to decreased engagement from clinic champions and differences in priorities between research and clinic staff. CONCLUSIONS: The PHC intervention was found to fit within HIV primary care service settings, but there were some logistical challenges that needed to be addressed. Additionally, even within the context of an effectiveness trial, significant and nonlinear change in implementation climate should be expected over time.

BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that those who have sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at increased risk of adverse behaviors and health indicators, such as certain chronic physical and mental health conditions. However, little is known about the prevalence of these behaviors and health indicators among these individuals, information that could help decrease their risk of developing such conditions.METHODS Data (N = 4733) from the 2018 North Carolina Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were analyzed to determine the prevalence of behaviors and health indicators among individuals who report having a lifetime history of TBI with loss of consciousness (LOC).RESULTS North Carolinians who report a lifetime history of TBI with LOC were at increased risk of reporting a range of 3 negative health behaviors: less than always seatbelt use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-2.4), HIV risk behaviors (AOR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.1-2.6), and reporting less than 7 hours of sleep (AOR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2-1.8); more difficulty obtaining health care (not seeing a doctor due to health care cost in the past 12 months [AOR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.0-1.8]; not getting a routine medical check-up in the past 12 months [AOR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2-2.0]); worse self-reported health (fair or poor general health [AOR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.4-2.3]); and reporting fair or poor mental health (AOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.6-2.8) compared with individuals who did not report a history of TBI.LIMITATIONS There are several limitations to the study, such as the sample being biased toward more severe brain injuries. Additionally, because the data in the BRFSS are retrospective and cross-sectional, it is not possible to determine temporality and causality between TBI history and the behaviors and health indicators examined.CONCLUSION Despite these limitations, this paper is one of the first to directly examine the association between history of TBI with LOC and a range of current behaviors and health care utilization. Assessing positive and negative behaviors and health indicators can help identify and tailor evidence-based interventions for those who have a history of TBI.

Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases are a major public health threat in the Upper Midwestern United States, including Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. To prevent tick bites and tick-borne diseases, public health officials commonly recommend personal protective measures and property management techniques. Adoption of tick-borne disease prevention behaviors and practices by individuals are, however, highly variable. We aimed to characterize current tick-borne disease knowledge, attitudes, and prevention behaviors (KAB) practiced by the public in these states, as well as their willingness to use specific tick control methods. We conducted a population-based survey in summer 2019 in 48 high-risk counties (those having a five-year average (2013-2017) Lyme disease incidence of ≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons per year), in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. A total of 2713 surveys were analyzed; survey weights were used to account for household selection probability and post-stratified to match county-level joint age and sex population distributions in population-level inference. An estimated 98% of the population had heard of Lyme disease, with most perceiving it as very or extremely serious (91%); however, only an estimated 25% perceived tick-borne diseases as very or extremely common in their community. Among those who spent time in places with ticks from April through October, an estimated 68% check themselves thoroughly for ticks most of the time or always and 43% use bug repellent on skin or clothing most of the time or always. An estimated 13% of the population had ever treated their property with a pesticide to kill ticks, and 3% had ever used devices that apply pesticide to rodents to kill ticks on their property. Willingness to practice tick bite prevention behaviors, however, was estimated to be much higher; with 82% being willing to perform tick checks at least once a day, and more than 60% willing to use bug repellent, tick control products on pets, or to bathe within two hours of being outdoors. We found that residents would likely be willing to support a county-wide tick control program to reduce the risk of tick-borne disease in their community (81%) or to apply tick control products to their property to reduce the risk of tick-borne disease in their household (79%). Tick checks were more likely to be practiced among participants who perceived tick-borne diseases to be highly prevalent in their community, if they or a household member had been previously diagnosed with a tick-borne disease?, or if they perceived tick exposure to be likely around their home, cabin, or vacation home. In addition, property-based tick control methods were associated with perceived risk of encountering ticks around the home, cabin, or vacation home. Participants who had seen information from state health departments were also more likely to practice preventive measures. The most common reported barriers to using any of these methods were forgetfulness, safety concerns, and lack of awareness. Our survey findings shed light on how residents from these Upper Midwest states may adopt tick control and tick bite prevention measures and how public health outreach may be most effective for this population.

Approximately 900,000 U.S. children have heart conditions, such as congenital heart disease (1). These children might be at increased risk for life-threatening infective endocarditis from oral bacteria in the bloodstream (2). Therefore, preventive dental care (i.e., check-ups, dental cleaning, radiographs, fluoride treatment, or sealant) to maintain oral health is important. Oral health status and receipt of preventive dental care were compared between children with heart conditions (2,928) and without (116,826) using population-based 2016-2019 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) data. Approximately 83% of children with and 80% without heart conditions received preventive dental care in the past year (p = 0.06). Children with heart conditions were more likely than were those without to have poor oral health (17.2% versus 13.7%; p = 0.02) and teeth in fair or poor condition (9.9% versus 5.3%; p<0.01). Among those with a heart condition, having low household income; an intellectual or developmental disability; and no well-child visit or medical home were associated with poor oral health. Receipt of preventive dental care was higher among children aged ≥6 years and those with insurance. Public health practitioners and health care providers can implement strategies (e.g., parent and patient education and collaboration between pediatricians, dentists, and cardiologists) to improve oral health and care among children with heart conditions, especially those with fewer resources and intellectual or developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The Transmission Assessment Survey (TAS) is a decision-making tool to determine when transmission of lymphatic filariasis is presumed to have reached a level low enough that it cannot be sustained even in the absence of mass drug administration. The survey is applied over geographic areas, called evaluation units (EUs); existing World Health Organization guidelines limit EU size to a population of no more than 2 million people. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2015, TASs were conducted in 14 small EUs in Haiti. Simulations, using the observed TAS results, were performed to understand the potential programmatic impact had Haiti chosen to form larger EUs. Nine "combination-EUs" were formed by grouping adjacent EUs, and bootstrapping was used to simulate the expected TAS results. When the combination-EUs were comprised of at least one "passing" and one "failing" EU, the majority of these combination-EU would pass the TAS 79% - 100% of the time. Even in the case when both component EUs had failed, the combination-EU was expected to "pass" 11% of the time. Simulations of mini-TAS, a strategy with smaller power and hence smaller sample size than TAS, resulted in more conservative "passing" and "failing" when implemented in original EUs. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate the high potential for misclassification when the average prevalence of lymphatic filariasis in the combined areas differs with regards to the TAS threshold. Of particular concern is the risk of "passing" larger EUs that include focal areas where prevalence is high enough to be potentially self-sustaining. Our results reaffirm the approach that Haiti took in forming smaller EUs. Where baseline or monitoring data show a high or heterogeneous prevalence, programs should leverage alternative strategies like mini-TAS in smaller EUs, or consider gathering additional data through spot check sites to advise EU formation.

Background: Ethiopia Population-based HIV Impact Assessment findings showed that in Addis Ababa, only 65.2% of people living with HIV (PLHIV) know their status. We present the enhanced HIV/AIDS data management and systematic monitoring experience in Addis Ababa City Administration Health Bureau (AACAHB). Methods: AACAHB established a command-post with leadership and technical team members from the health bureau, 10 sub-city health offices, and non-governmental stakeholders. The command-post improved governance, standardized HIV program implementation, and established accountability mechanism. A web-based database was established at each health facility, sub-city, and AACAHB level. Performance was scored (green, ≥75%; yellow, 50–74%; red, < 50%). The command-post reviewed performance on weekly basis. A mentorship team provided a weekly site-level support at underperforming public and private health facilities. At facility level, quality of data on recording tools such as registers, and individual medical records were maintained through continued review, feedback mechanisms and regular consistency check of data. Percentage and 95% confidence interval were computed to compare the improvement in program performance over time. Results: After 6 months of intervention period, the monthly New HIV case finding in 47 health facilities increased from 422 to 734 (1.7 times) and treatment initiation increased from 302 to 616 (2 times). After 6 months, the aggregate scoring for HIV testing at city level improved from yellow to green, HIV case finding improved from red to green, and treatment initiation improved from red to yellow. An increasing trend was noted in HIV positive case finding with statistically significant improvement from 43.4% [95% Confidence Interval: 40.23–46.59%] in May 2019 to 74.9% [95% Confidence Interval: 72.03–77.6%] in September 2019. Similarly, significant improvement was recorded for new HIV treatment from 30.9% [95% Confidence Interval: 28.01–33.94%] in May 2019 to 62.5% [95% Confidence Interval: 59.38–65.6%] in September 2019. Conclusions: Regular data driven HIV program review was institutionalized at city, sub-city and health facility levels which further improved HIV program monitoring and performance. The performance of HIV case finding and treatment initiation improved significantly via using intensified monitoring, data driven performance review, targeted site-level support based on the gap, and standardized approaches. © 2022, The Author(s).

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to assess self-reported receipt of diabetes education among people with diabetes and its association with following recommended self-care and clinical preventive care practices. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 61 424 adults (18years) with self-reported diabetes in 43 states and Washington, DC. Diabetes education was defined as ever taking a diabetes self-management class. The association of diabetes education with self-care practices (daily glucose testing, daily foot checks, smoking abstention, and engaging in leisure-time physical activity) and clinical practices (pneumococcal vaccination, biannual A1C test, and an annual dilated eye exam, influenza vaccination, health care visit for diabetes, and foot exam by a medical professional) was assessed. Multivariable logistic regression with predicted margins was used to predict the probability of following these practices, by diabetes education, controlling for sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of adults with diabetes, only half reported receiving diabetes education. Results indicate that receipt of diabetes education is associated with following self-care and clinical preventive care practices. Those who did receive diabetes education had a higher predicted probability for following all 4 self-care practices (smoking abstention, daily glucose testing, daily foot check, and engaging in leisure-time physical activity) and all 6 clinical practices (pneumonia vaccination, biannual A1C test, and an annual eye exam, flu vaccination, health care visit, and medical foot exam). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of adults with diabetes receiving diabetes education remains low. Increasing receipt of diabetes education may improve diabetes-related preventive care.