BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2020, the COVID-19 infodemic began to affect public confidence in and demand for COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. While polls indicated what consumers felt regarding COVID-19 vaccines, they did not provide an understanding of why they felt that way or the social and informational influences that factored into vaccine confidence and uptake. It was essential for us to better understand how information ecosystems were affecting the confidence in and demand for COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established an Insights Unit within the COVID-19 Response's Vaccine Task Force in January 2021 to assist the agency in acting more swiftly to address the questions, concerns, perceptions, and misinformation that appeared to be affecting uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We established a novel methodology to rapidly detect and report on trends in vaccine confidence and demand to guide communication efforts and improve programmatic quality in near real time. METHODS: We identified and assessed data sources for inclusion through an informal landscape analysis using a snowball method. Selected data sources provided an expansive look at the information ecosystem of the United States regarding COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC's Vaccinate with Confidence framework and the World Health Organization's behavioral and social drivers for vaccine decision-making framework were selected as guiding principles for interpreting generated insights and their impact. We used qualitative thematic analysis methods and a consensus-building approach to identify prevailing and emerging themes, assess their potential threat to vaccine confidence, and propose actions to increase confidence and demand. RESULTS: As of August 2022, we have produced and distributed 34 reports to >950 recipients within the CDC and externally. State and local health departments, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, and congressional committees have referenced and used the reports for learning about COVID-19 vaccine confidence and demand, developing communication strategies, and demonstrating how the CDC monitored and responded to misinformation. A survey of the reports' end users found that nearly 75% (40/53) of respondents found them "very" or "extremely" relevant and 52% (32/61) used the reports to inform communication strategies. In addition, our methodology underwent continuous process improvement to increase the rigor of the research process, the validity of the findings, and the usability of the reports. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can serve as a diagnostic technique for rapidly identifying opportunities for public health interventions and prevention. As the methodology itself is adaptable, it could be leveraged and scaled for use in a variety of public health settings. Furthermore, it could be considered beyond acute public health crises to support adherence to guidance and recommendations and could be considered within routine monitoring and surveillance systems.

Robert Louis Stevenson, the renowned Scottish author and poet, was born in 1850 in Edinburgh, Scotland. From childhood onward, he suffered from frequent chest infections, fevers, and hemoptysis. This master who gave us Treasure Island (1881–83), A Child’s Garden of Verses (1885), Kidnapped (1886), and Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886) lived his brief 44 years in an era when tuberculosis (then called consumption) was widespread in Europe but laboratory and radiologic diagnostics were not available. | | On March 24, 1882, the date on which World TB Day is based, Robert Koch announced his discovery of the causative organism of tuberculosis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Through Koch’s use of alkalinized methylene blue stain and a brown counterstain for contrast, this discovery laid to rest the theory that tuberculosis was congenital, a belief stemming from its extensive occurrence in families. In 1895, Wilhelm Röntgen first described the potential medical application of radiography when he captured the image of the bony and soft-tissue structures of his wife’s hand on a photographic plate. Without bacteriology or radiography, Stevenson’s persistently cachectic body habitus and pulmonary symptoms were thought to be consistent with tuberculosis, although other diagnoses have been proposed. These have included chronic idiopathic bronchiectasis, sarcoidosis, and hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, any of which could potentially have been exacerbated by residual scarring from the bouts of pneumonia he experienced as a child and by his chain-smoking as an adult.

Introduction Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. Methods Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. Results Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). Conclusion In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

BACKGROUND: To respond to the need to establish infodemic management functions at the national public health institute in Germany (Robert Koch Institute, RKI), we explored and assessed available data sources, developed a social listening and integrated analysis framework, and defined when infodemic management functions should be activated during emergencies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish a framework for social listening and integrated analysis for public health in the German context using international examples and technical guidance documents for infodemic management. METHODS: This study completed the following objectives: identified (potentially) available data sources for social listening and integrated analysis; assessed these data sources for their suitability and usefulness for integrated analysis in addition to an assessment of their risk using the RKI's standardized data protection requirements; developed a framework and workflow to combine social listening and integrated analysis to report back actionable infodemic insights for public health communications by the RKI and stakeholders; and defined criteria for activating integrated analysis structures in the context of a specific health event or health emergency. RESULTS: We included and classified 38% (16/42) of the identified and assessed data sources for social listening and integrated analysis at the RKI into 3 categories: social media and web-based listening data, RKI-specific data, and infodemic insights. Most data sources can be analyzed weekly to detect current trends and narratives and to inform a timely response by reporting insights that include a risk assessment and scalar judgments of different narratives and themes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified, assessed, and prioritized a wide range of data sources for social listening and integrated analysis to report actionable infodemic insights, ensuring a valuable first step in establishing and operationalizing infodemic management at the RKI. This case study also serves as a roadmap for others. Ultimately, once operational, these activities will inform better and targeted public health communication at the RKI and beyond.

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.

BACKGROUND: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly divergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. METHODS: An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing diverse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health-implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. RESULTS: The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof; (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics; (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources; (4) setting up a technical working group; and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics; generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations; and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.

INTRODUCTION: Around one-third of Americans reported they were unwilling to get a COVID-19 vaccine in April 2021. This focus group study aimed to provide insights on the factors contributing to unvaccinated adults' hesitancy or refusal to get vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. METHOD: Ipsos recruited 59 unvaccinated US adults who were vaccine hesitant (i.e., conflicted about or opposed to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination) using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Trained facilitators led a total of 10 focus groups via video-conference in March and April 2021. Two coders manually coded the data from each group using a coding frame based on the focus group discussion guide. The coding team collaborated in analyzing the data for key themes. RESULTS: Data analysis of transcripts from the focus groups illuminated four main themes associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: lack of trust in experts and institutions; concern about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines; resistance towards prescriptive guidance and restrictions; and, despite personal reluctance or unwillingness to get vaccinated, acceptance of others getting vaccinated. DISCUSSION: Vaccine confidence communication strategies should address individual concerns, describe the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, and highlight evolving science using factural and neutral presentations of information to foster trust.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions.

Public health systems need to be able to detect and respond to infodemics (outbreaks of misinformation, disinformation, information overload, or information voids). Drawing from our experience at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 State of Vaccine Confidence Insight Reporting System has been created as one of the first public health infodemic surveillance systems. Key functions of infodemic surveillance systems include monitoring the information environment by person, place, and time; identifying infodemic events with digital analytics; conducting offline community-based assessments; and generating timely routine reports. Although specific considerations of several system attributes of infodemic surveillance system must be considered, infodemic surveillance systems share several similarities with traditional public health surveillance systems. Because both information and pathogens are spread more readily in an increasingly hyperconnected world, sustainable and routine systems must be created to ensure that timely interventions can be deployed for both epidemic and infodemic response.

INTRODUCTION: Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. METHODS: Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. RESULTS: Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). CONCLUSION: In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States. METHODS: Data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of 1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18-49years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent. RESULTS: Our analyses included 110,925 women aged 18-49years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women. DISCUSSION: Our findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations have higher prevalences of health conditions associated with severe COVID-19 illness compared with non-LGBT populations (1). The potential for low vaccine confidence and coverage among LGBT populations is of concern because these persons historically experience challenges accessing, trusting, and receiving health care services (2). Data on COVID-19 vaccination among LGBT persons are limited, in part because of the lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity at the national and state levels. During August 29-October 30, 2021, data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among LGBT adults aged 18 years. By sexual orientation, gay or lesbian adults reported higher vaccination coverage overall (85.4%) than did heterosexual adults (76.3%). By race/ethnicity, adult gay or lesbian non-Hispanic White men (94.1%) and women (88.5%), and Hispanic men (82.5%) reported higher vaccination coverage than that reported by non-Hispanic White heterosexual men (74.2%) and women (78. 6%). Among non-Hispanic Black adults, vaccination coverage was lower among gay or lesbian women (57.9%) and bisexual women (62.1%) than among heterosexual women (75.6%). Vaccination coverage was lowest among non-Hispanic Black LGBT persons across all categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. Among gay or lesbian adults and bisexual adults, vaccination coverage was lower among women (80.5% and 74.2%, respectively) than among men (88.9% and 81.7%, respectively). By gender identity, similar percentages of adults who identified as transgender or nonbinary and those who did not identify as transgender or nonbinary were vaccinated. Gay or lesbian adults and bisexual adults were more confident than were heterosexual adults in COVID-19 vaccine safety and protection; transgender or nonbinary adults were more confident in COVID-19 vaccine protection, but not safety, than were adults who did not identify as transgender or nonbinary. To prevent serious illness and death, it is important that all persons in the United States, including those in the LGBT community, stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

Since April 19, 2021, all persons aged ≥16 years in the United States have been eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As of May 30, 2021, approximately one half of U.S. adults were fully vaccinated, with the lowest coverage and lowest reported intent to get vaccinated among young adults aged 18-39 years (1-4). To examine attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination intent among adults in this age group, CDC conducted nationally representative household panel surveys during March-May 2021. Among respondents aged 18-39 years, 34.0% reported having received a COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 51.8% were already vaccinated or definitely planned to get vaccinated, 23.2% reported that they probably were going to get vaccinated or were unsure about getting vaccinated, and 24.9% reported that they probably or definitely would not get vaccinated. Adults aged 18-24 years were least likely to report having received a COVID-19 vaccine and were most likely to report being unsure about getting vaccinated or that they were probably going to get vaccinated. Adults aged 18-39 years with lower incomes, with lower educational attainment, without health insurance, who were non-Hispanic Black, and who lived outside of metropolitan areas had the lowest reported vaccination coverage and intent to get vaccinated. Concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness were the primary reported reasons for not getting vaccinated. Vaccination intent and acceptance among adults aged 18-39 years might be increased by improving confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy while emphasizing that vaccines are critical to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to friends and family and for resuming social activities (5).

Quantitative and qualitative assessments have revealed diverse factors that influence the uptake of childhood immunisation services and shed light on reasons for vaccination delays and refusals. UNICEF and partner organisations developed the Immunisation Caregiver Journey Framework as a novel way to understand caregiver experiences in accessing and receiving immunisation services for children. This framework aims to help immunisation programmes identify vaccination barriers and opportunities to improve vaccination uptake by enhancing the overall caregiver journey in a systems-focused manner, using human-centred design principles. In this paper, we adapt the framework into a flexible qualitative inquiry approach with theoretical guidance from interpretative phenomenology. We draw from the implementation experiences in Sierra Leone to inform methodological guidance on how to design and implement the Immunisation Caregiver Journey Interviews (ICJI) to understand the lived experiences of caregivers as they navigate immunisation services for their children. Practical guidance is provided on sampling techniques, conducting interviews, data management, data analysis and the use of data to inform programmatic actions. When properly implemented, the ICJI approach generates a rich qualitative understanding of how caregivers navigate household and community dynamics, as well as primary healthcare delivery systems. We argue that understanding and improving the caregiver journey will enhance essential immunisation outcomes, such as the completion of the recommended vaccination schedule, timeliness of vaccination visits and reduction in dropouts between vaccine doses.

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever prevention and control efforts are critical in an era of rising antimicrobial resistance among typhoid pathogens. India remains one of the highest typhoid disease burden countries, although a highly efficacious typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV), prequalified by the World Health Organization in 2017, has been available since 2013. In 2018, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) introduced TCV into its immunization program, targeting children aged 9 months to 14 years in 11 of 22 areas (Phase 1 campaign). We describe the decision making, implementation, and delivery costing to inform TCV use in other settings. METHODS: We collected information on the decision making and campaign implementation in addition to administrative coverage from NMMC and partners. We then used a microcosting approach from the local government (NMMC) perspective, using a new Microsoft Excel-based tool to estimate the financial and economic vaccination campaign costs. RESULTS: The planning and implementation of the campaign were led by NMMC with support from multiple partners. A fixed-post campaign was conducted during weekends and public holidays in July-August 2018 which achieved an administrative vaccination coverage of 71% (ranging from 46% in high-income to 92% in low-income areas). Not including vaccine and vaccination supplies, the average financial cost and economic cost per dose of TCV delivery were $0.45 and $1.42, respectively. CONCLUSION: The first public sector TCV campaign was successfully implemented by NMMC, with high administrative coverage in slums and low-income areas. Delivery cost estimates provide important inputs to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and affordability of TCV vaccination through public sector preventive campaigns.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of AEFI is fundamental for improving safety and maintaining public support for vaccination. In SEAR, billions of doses of vaccine are given annually. The objective of the 2019 SEAR AEFI training workshop was to further strengthen in-country vaccine safety, assess capacity compared to 2014 and to better integrate communication into the AEFI causality assessment program. METHODS: A 3 (1/2) day workshop with AEFI experts from all 11 SEAR countries. Participants outlined each county's AEFI data, critiqued their AEFI program, reviewed and critiqued causality assessment of 23 anonymized serious AEFI cases and proposed communication plans for each. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2018, over 2.9 billion doses of vaccine were given in SEAR. Compared to 2014, AEFI detection and causality assessment skills had improved. AEFI experts' communication planning skills markedly improved during the workshop. Good concordance was found between country causality assessment findings and the workshop critiques. A list of targeted recommendations (country, regional and global levels) arose from the workshop. CONCLUSIONS: SEAR countries have much improved their AEFI detection and causality assessment expertise since 2014. Given the high volume of doses administered and the AEFI technical expertise, SEAR countries can well monitor safety of regionally produced vaccines. Integration of AEFI communication into AEFI causality assessment can help mitigate potential negative impacts of serious AEFIs.

Creating and sustaining demand for immunization services is a global priority to ensure that vaccine-eligible populations are fully protected from vaccine-preventable diseases. Social mobilization remains a key health promotion strategy used by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to promote vaccination demand. In this commentary, we synthesize illustrative evidence on successful social mobilization efforts promoting the uptake of immunization services in select LMICs. The first example focuses on Sierra Leone's routine immunization program during the Universal Child Immunization initiative in the late 1980s. We then give an example of India's establishment of a social mobilization network in the early- to mid-2000s to support polio elimination in high-risk communities. Thirdly, we highlight the complexities of social mobilization in a humanitarian emergency during the 2017-2018 diphtheria outbreak among displaced Rohingyas in camps and settlements in Bangladesh. Lastly, we draw upon examples from the introduction of the human papillomavirus vaccine in several countries. We then critically examine recurring challenges faced when implementing social mobilization for immunization in LMICs and offer practical recommendations for improvement.

The success of immunization programs in lowering the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) has led to increased public attention on potential health risks associated with vaccines. As a result, a scientifically rigorous response to investigating reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and effective risk communications strategies are critical to ensure public confidence in immunization. Globally, an estimated 257 million people have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, which causes more than 686,000 premature deaths from liver cancer and cirrhosis. Hepatitis B vaccination is the most effective way to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV infection, especially when a timely birth dose is given within 24h of birth. However, an infant's risk of dying is highest in the neonatal period, and thus, administering HepB-BD within 24h of birth overlaps with the most fragile period in an infant's life. A working group formed in July 2016 following the publication of the case reports of the effects on vaccination coverage of media reports of infant deaths after HepB-BD administration in China and Vietnam. The goal of the working group was to create a framework and describe best practices for preparing for and responding to AEFI reported after HepB-BD administration, using existing resources. The framework includes six steps, including three preparation steps and three response steps. This document is written for national and regional immunization program staff. Prior to using the framework for preparation and response to AEFIs reported after HepB-BD administration, staff members should be familiar with how AEFI are detected, reported, and investigated in the country. The document might also be of interest to national regulatory staff members who monitor vaccine safety within the country.

Microsporidiosis is an emerging opportunistic infection in immunocompromised patients. We report a case of fatal disseminated Anncaliia algerae infection in a profoundly immunosuppressed pancreas and kidney transplant recipient.

The acidic nature of the skin surface was recognised more than a century ago and has been measured since 1928. Several non-invasive methods for measuring skin surface pH have been developed ever since and have contributed to our understanding of healthy and diseased skin. This chapter summarises the endogenous physiological, exogenous and environmental factors that influence skin surface pH and its measurement as well as the different measurement methods for skin surface pH, with specific emphasis on the classic planar glass electrode method. Also, practical guidance for measurement of skin surface pH using the planar glass electrode method is provided. Adherence to practical skin surface pH measurement (method) guidelines with due consideration and practicable control of all factors that may affect skin surface pH will ensure credible pH measurement results in our continuous pursuit of understanding especially diseased skin.

Household water treatment with chlorine can improve the microbiological quality of household water and reduce diarrheal disease. We conducted laboratory and field studies to inform chlorine dosage recommendations. In the laboratory, reactors of varying turbidity (10-300 NTU) and total organic carbon (0-25 mg/L addition) were created, spiked with Escherichia coli, and dosed with 3.75 mg/L sodium hypochlorite. All reactors had >4 log reduction of E. coli 24 hours after chlorine addition. In the field, we tested 158 sources in 22 countries for chlorine demand. A 1.88 mg/L dosage for water from improved sources of <5 or <10 NTU turbidity met free chlorine residual criteria (</=2.0 mg/L at 1 hour, >/=0.2 mg/L at 24 hours) 91-94% and 82-87% of the time at 8 and 24 hours, respectively. In unimproved water source samples, a 3.75 mg/L dosage met relaxed criteria (</=4.0 mg/L at 1 hour, >/=0.2 mg/L after 24 hours) 83% and 65% of the time after 8 and 24 hours, respectively. We recommend water from improved/low turbidity sources be dosed at 1.88 mg/L and used within 24 hours, and from unimproved/higher turbidity sources be dosed at 3.75 mg/L and consumed within 8 hours. Further research on field effectiveness of chlorination is recommended.

The health and economic burden of asthma in the United States is substantial. Asthma self-management education (AS-ME) and home-based interventions for asthma can improve asthma control and prevent asthma exacerbations, and interest in health care-public health collaboration regarding asthma is increasing. However, outpatient AS-ME and home-based asthma intervention programs are not widely available; economic sustainability is a common concern. Thus, we conducted a narrative review of existing literature regarding economic outcomes of outpatient AS-ME and home-based intervention programs for asthma in the United States. We identified 9 outpatient AS-ME programs and 17 home-based intervention programs with return on investment (ROI) data. Most programs were associated with a positive ROI; a few programs observed positive ROIs only among selected populations (eg, higher health care utilization). Interpretation of existing data is limited by heterogeneous ROI calculations. Nevertheless, the literature suggests promise for sustainable opportunities to expand access to outpatient AS-ME and home-based asthma intervention programs in the United States. More definitive knowledge about how to maximize program benefit and sustainability could be gained through more controlled studies of specific populations and increased uniformity in economic assessments.

Populations living in informal settlements with inadequate water and sanitation infrastructure are at risk of epidemic disease. In 2010, we conducted 398 household surveys in two informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya with isolated cholera cases. We tested source and household water for free chlorine residual (FCR) and Escherichia coli in approximately 200 households. International guidelines are ≥0.5 mg/L FCR at source, ≥0.2 mg/L at household, and <1 E. coli/100 mL. In these two settlements, 82% and 38% of water sources met FCR guidelines; and 7% and 8% were contaminated with E. coli, respectively. In household stored water, 82% and 35% met FCR guidelines and 11% and 32% were contaminated with E. coli, respectively. Source water FCR ≥0.5 mg/L (p = 0.003) and reported purchase of a household water treatment product (p = 0.002) were associated with increases in likelihood that household stored water had ≥0.2 mg/L FCR, which was associated with a lower likelihood of E. coli contamination (p < 0.001). These results challenge the assumption that water quality in informal settlements is universally poor and the route of disease transmission, and highlight that providing centralized water with ≥0.5 mg/L FCR or (if not feasible) household water treatment technologies reduces the risk of waterborne cholera transmission in informal settlements.

BACKGROUND: Ehrlichiosis is a clinically important, emerging zoonosis. Only Ehrlichia chaffeensis and E. ewingii have been thought to cause ehrlichiosis in humans in the United States. Patients with suspected ehrlichiosis routinely undergo testing to ensure proper diagnosis and to ascertain the cause. METHODS: We used molecular methods, culturing, and serologic testing to diagnose and ascertain the cause of cases of ehrlichiosis. RESULTS: On testing, four cases of ehrlichiosis in Minnesota or Wisconsin were found not to be from E. chaffeensis or E. ewingii and instead to be caused by a newly discovered ehrlichia species. All patients had fever, malaise, headache, and lymphopenia; three had thrombocytopenia; and two had elevated liver-enzyme levels. All recovered after receiving doxycycline treatment. At least 17 of 697 Ixodes scapularis ticks collected in Minnesota or Wisconsin were positive for the same ehrlichia species on polymerase-chain-reaction testing. Genetic analyses revealed that this new ehrlichia species is closely related to E. muris. CONCLUSIONS: We report a new ehrlichia species in Minnesota and Wisconsin and provide supportive clinical, epidemiologic, culture, DNA-sequence, and vector data. Physicians need to be aware of this newly discovered close relative of E. muris to ensure appropriate testing, treatment, and regional surveillance. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).