Uganda used Ebola vaccines as part of its preparedness and response during the 2018-2020 10th Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We evaluated the public's perceptions of Ebola vaccines and compared their confidence in health services to treat Ebola versus malaria and tuberculosis as part of a survey on Ebola knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) conducted in March 2020. A cross-sectional household survey was implemented in six districts in Uganda using multi-stage cluster sampling to randomly select participants. The districts were purposively selected from districts classified by the government as at high- or low-risk for an EVD outbreak. We describe perceptions of Ebola vaccines and confidence in health services to treat Ebola, tuberculosis, and malaria. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to identify the demographic correlates of these outcomes. Among 3,485 respondents, 18% were aware of Ebola vaccines. Of those, 92% agreed that the vaccines were needed to prevent Ebola. Participants aged 15-24 years were 4% more likely to perceive such need compared to those 60 years and older (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.08). The perceived need was 5% lower among participants with at least some secondary education compared to uneducated participants (aPR 0.95; 0.92-0.99). Overall, 81% of those aware of the vaccines believed that everyone or most people in their community would get vaccinated if offered, and 94% said they would likely get vaccinated if offered. Confidence in health services to treat Ebola was lower compared to treating malaria or tuberculosis (55% versus 93% and 77%, respectively). However, participants from the EVD high-risk districts were 22% more likely to be confident in health services to treat Ebola compared to those in low-risk districts (aPR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.38). Our findings suggest that intent to take an Ebola vaccine during an outbreak was strong, but more work needs to be done to increase public awareness of these vaccines. The public's high confidence in health services to treat other health threats, such as malaria and tuberculosis, offer building blocks for strengthening their confidence in health services to treat EVD in the event of an outbreak.

BACKGROUND: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. METHODS: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. RESULTS: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. CONCLUSIONS: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.

Vaccines prevent 4-5 million deaths every year, but inequities in vaccine coverage persist among key disadvantaged subpopulations. Under-immunized subpopulations (e.g., migrants, slum residents) may be consistently missed with conventional methods for estimating immunization coverage and assessing vaccination barriers. Adaptive sampling, such as respondent-driven sampling, may offer useful strategies for identifying and collecting data from these subpopulations that are often "hidden" or hard-to-reach. However, use of these adaptive sampling approaches in the field of global immunization has not been systematically documented. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify eligible studies published through November 2020 that used an adaptive sampling method to collect immunization-related data. From the eligible studies, we extracted relevant data on their objectives, setting and target population, and sampling methods. We categorized sampling methods and assessed their frequencies. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3069 articles screened for eligibility. Peer-driven sampling was the most frequently used adaptive sampling method (57%), followed by geospatial sampling (30%), venue-based sampling (17%), ethnographic mapping (9%), and compact segment sampling (9%). Sixty-one percent of studies were conducted in upper-middle-income or high-income countries. Data on immunization uptake were collected in 65% of studies, and data on knowledge and attitudes about immunizations were collected in 57% of studies. We found limited use of adaptive sampling methods in measuring immunization coverage and understanding determinants of vaccination uptake. The current under-utilization of adaptive sampling approaches leaves much room for improvement in how immunization programs calibrate their strategies to reach "hidden" subpopulations.

Introduction: During the 2018–2020 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) were prioritized in geographic areas in Uganda considered at high risk of introduction of EVD. To inform EVD preparedness in Uganda, we evaluated community perceptions and prevention practices related to EVD in 6 districts in Uganda. Methods: In March 2020, we conducted a population-based survey in 6 purposively selected districts in Uganda using multistage cluster sampling. We examined differences between districts classified as high- versus low risk for EVD in terms of their message exposure from RCCE; risk perception; and EVD knowledge, attitudes, and prevention practices. Results: A total of 3,485 respondents were interviewed (91% response rate). EVD message exposure was more common in the high- versus low-risk districts. EVD risk perceptions were low overall but greater in the high- versus low-risk districts. Comprehensive knowledge was significantly greater in the high- versus low-risk districts (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.35, 1.93). Respondents’ engagement in all 3 EVD prevention practices (frequent handwashing with soap, avoiding physical contact with suspected Ebola patients, and avoiding burials involving contact with a corpse) was very low (4%). However, respondents with comprehensive knowledge were more likely to engage in all 3 EVD prevention practices compared to respondents without comprehensive knowledge (aPR 1.87, 95% CI=1.08, 3.25). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that while RCCE efforts as part of EVD outbreak preparedness may have contributed to higher EVD knowledge in the targeted high-risk districts, uptake of prevention behaviors was similarly low across districts. In a non-outbreak setting, implementing targeted RCCE strategies may not be sufficient to motivate people to adopt protective behaviors in the absence of a high threshold of perceived threat such as in an active outbreak. © Musaazi et al.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and test positivity among persons aged <18 years in a three-site outpatient pediatric practice in Atlanta, Georgia, serving approximately 35,000 pediatric patients. METHODS: Using electronic medical records, weekly trends in SARS-CoV-2 tests performed and the 14-day moving average of test positivity were examined, overall and by age group, during May 24-December 5, 2020. RESULTS: Among 4,995 patients who received at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test, 6,813 total tests were completed. Overall test positivity was 5.4% and was higher among older pediatric patients (<5 years: 3.3%; 5-11 years: 4.1%; 12-17 years: 8.6%). The number of tests and test positivity increased after holidays and school breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Families might benefit from communication focused on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during holidays. In addition, given higher test positivity in children aged 12-17 years, tailoring public health messaging to older adolescents could help limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in this population.

We evaluated the effect of an option B-plus Enhanced Adherence Package (BEAP), on early ART uptake in a randomized controlled trial. HIV-positive, ART naïve pregnant women in Lusaka, Zambia, were randomized to receive BEAP (phone calls/home visits, additional counseling, male partner engagement and missed-visit follow-up) versus standard of care (SOC). The primary outcome was initiating and remaining on ART at 30 days. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT) using logistic regression. Additional per protocol analysis was done. We enrolled 454 women; 229 randomized to BEAP and 225 to SOC. Within 30 days of eligibility, 445 (98.2%) initiated ART. In ITT analysis, 82.5% BEAP versus 80.4% SOC participants reached primary outcome (crude relative risk [RR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.16; Wald test statistic = 0.44; p-value = 0.66). In per protocol analysis, (92 participants (40.2%) excluded), 91.9% BEAP versus 80.4% SOC participants reached primary outcome (crude RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.29; Wald test statistic = 2.23; p-value = 0.03). Early ART initiation in pregnancy was nearly universal but there was early drop out suggesting need for additional adherence support.This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (trials number NCT02459678) on May 14, 2015.