Perceptions and acceptability of an experimental Ebola vaccine among health care workers, frontline staff, and the general public during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone

Healthcare Providers' and Frontline Workers' Experiences of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Boende Health District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

This study explored the experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and frontline workers who were involved in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers interviewed a total of 99 participants (HCPs and frontline workers) living and working in the Boende health district during the period of the study, from February to March 2022. These individuals included a mix of trial participants and non-trial participants (staff of the trial, local health authorities, and head nurses of health centers). In-depth individual interviews, as well as focus group discussions (FGDs), were used to understand interviewees' experiences and perceptions. The data were analyzed to identify the main themes. The findings unveiled a multitude of positive experiences among interviewees/FGD participants. The commitment of the trial investigators to improve the study site and to equip the volunteers with necessary skills and knowledge greatly contributed to a positive trial experience. However, some interviewees felt that the reimbursement for time and travel expenses during their trial visits was insufficient in comparison with their expectations. Additionally, there were expressions of worry about the frequency of blood draws during scheduled trial visits. Our findings emphasize the critical importance of addressing and continuously considering the perspectives and concerns of trial participants before designing and implementing vaccine trials. By actively incorporating their inputs, researchers can mitigate concerns and tailor communication strategies, potentially enhancing the overall success and impact of the vaccine trial.

Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of healthcare and frontline workers to participate in an Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Understanding the knowledge, perception and attitudes towards Ebola vaccines is an important factor in ensuring future use of these vaccines. A qualitative methods study embedded in an Ebola vaccine immunogenicity and safety trial (NCT04028349) was conducted to explore the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare (HCWs) and frontline workers (FLWs), about Ebola vaccines and their willingness to participate or recommend participation in Uganda.

METHOD

We carried out focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews before and after vaccination, with 70 HCWs and FLWs who consented to participate in the trial, and in the qualitative component, from August to September 2019. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents showed good knowledge about Ebola and the vaccines in general, and had wide access to information through several channels, including the study team. On prevention, particular attention was given to effective communication within health facilities. Misconceptions were mainly around route of transmission, animal origin and types of vaccines. Previous fears were based on rumours circulating in the community, mainly about the presence of the virus in the vaccine, side effects and intention to harm (e.g. by "the whites"), ultimately insisting on transparency, trust and involvement of local leaders. Acceptability of participation was motivated by the need to protect self and others, and the willingness to advance research. Majority were willing to recommend participation to their community.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, information sharing leads to a better understanding and acceptance of vaccine trials and a positive vaccination experience can be a deciding factor in the acceptance of others. Particular attention should be paid to involving the community in addressing misconceptions and fears, while ensuring that participants have access to vaccination sites in terms of transport, and that they are properly accommodated at the study site including staying for a reasonable period of time.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

A rapid review of evidence on the determinants of and strategies for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the general population and health care workers play an important role in successfully controlling the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. While there is evidence for vaccine hesitancy across the globe, wide variation in factors influencing vaccine acceptance has been reported, mainly from High-Income Countries (HIC). However, the evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this review was to describe the determinants of vaccine acceptance and strategies to address those in an LMIC context.

METHODS

The World Health Organization's (WHO) Measuring Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Increasing Vaccination Model was employed to identify factors that influenced vaccine acceptance. All evidence related to supply-side and demand-side determinants and social and health system processes were examined. A comprehensive search for published literature was conducted in three databases and grey literature in relevant websites of government, multinational agencies, and COVID-19 resource aggregators, followed by a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Overall, the results showed that the vaccine acceptance rates differed across LMICs, with a wide variety of reasons cited for vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine acceptance was reportedly greater among males, those with higher education, elevated socio-economic status, the unmarried, those employed as health care workers. Evidence suggested that exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public concerns over the safety of vaccines may contribute to lower acceptance rates. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance rates included direct engagement with communities through influencers, including community leaders and health experts; clear and transparent communication about COVID-19 vaccines, financial and non-financial incentives; and strong endorsement from health care workers. Trust in government was identified as a significant enabler of vaccine acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for measures to address public acceptability, trust and concern over the safety and benefit of approved vaccines. Local context is essential to consider while developing programs to promote vaccine uptake. The governments worldwide also need to strategize to develop plans to address the anxiety and vaccine related concerns of community regarding vaccine hesitancy. There is a need for further research to evaluate strategies to address vaccine hesitancy in LMIC.

The principle of salvage in the context of COVID-19

The prioritisation of scarce resources has a particular urgency within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This paper sets out a hypothetical case of Patient X (who is a nurse) and Patient Y (who is a non-health care worker). They are both in need of a ventilator due to COVID-19 with the same clinical situation and expected outcomes. However, there is only one ventilator available. In addressing the question of who should get priority, the proposal is made that the answer may lie in how the pandemic is metaphorically described using military terms. If nursing is understood to take place at the 'frontline' in the 'battle' against COVID-19, a principle of military medical ethics-namely the principle of salvage-can offer guidance on how to prioritise access to a life-saving resource in such a situation. This principle of salvage purports a moral direction to return wounded soldiers back to duty on the battlefield. Applying this principle to the hypothetical case, this paper proposes that Patient X (who is a nurse) should get priority of access to the ventilator so that he/she can return to the 'frontline' in the fight against COVID-19.

Behaviour adoption approaches during public health emergencies: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

Human behaviour will continue to play an important role as the world grapples with public health threats. In this paper, we draw from the emerging evidence on behaviour adoption during diverse public health emergencies to develop a framework that contextualises behaviour adoption vis-à-vis a combination of top-down, intermediary and bottom-up approaches. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we operationalise the contextual framework to demonstrate how these three approaches differ in terms of their implementation, underlying drivers of action, enforcement, reach and uptake. We illustrate how blended strategies that include all three approaches can help accelerate and sustain protective behaviours that will remain important even when safe and effective vaccines become more widely available. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares to respond to (re)emerging public health threats, our contextual framework can inform the design, implementation, tracking and evaluation of comprehensive public health and social measures during health emergencies.

Ebola vaccine? Family first! Evidence from using a brief measure on Ebola vaccine demand in a national household survey during the outbreak in Sierra Leone

BACKGROUND

Vaccination against Ebolavirus is an emerging public health tool during Ebola Virus Disease outbreaks. We examined demand issues related to deployment of Ebolavirus vaccine during the 2014-2015 outbreak in Sierra Leone.

METHODS

A cluster survey was administered to a population-based sample in December 2014 (N = 3540), before any Ebola vaccine was available to the general public in Sierra Leone. Ebola vaccine demand was captured in this survey by three Likert-scale items that were used to develop a composite score and dichotomized into a binary outcome to define high demand. A multilevel logistic regression model was fitted to assess the associations between perceptions of who should be first to receive an Ebola vaccine and the expression of high demand for an Ebola vaccine.

RESULTS

The largest proportion of respondents reported that health workers (35.1%) or their own families (29.5%) should receive the vaccine first if it became available, rather than politicians (13.8%), vaccination teams (9.8%), or people in high risk areas (8.2%). High demand for an Ebola vaccine was expressed by 74.2% of respondents nationally. The odds of expressing high demand were 13 times greater among those who said they or their families should be the first to take the vaccine compared to those who said politicians should be the first recipients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 13.0 [95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8-21.6]). The ultra-brief measure of the Ebola vaccine demand demonstrated acceptable scale reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.79) and construct validity (single-factor loadings > 0.50).

CONCLUSION

Perceptions of who should be the first to get the vaccine was associated with high demand for Ebola vaccine around the peak of the outbreak in Sierra Leone. Using an ultra-brief measure of Ebola vaccine demand is a feasible solution in outbreak settings and can help inform development of future rapid assessment tools.

Mobilize to vaccinate: lessons learned from social mobilization for immunization in low and middle-income countries

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.