Global diversity of policy, coverage, and demand of COVID-19 vaccines: a descriptive study

A Scoping Review of Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake and Deployment in Global Healthcare Systems

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly developed and deployed on a large scale during a global crisis. A range of deployment strategies were used globally to maximize vaccine uptake. In this scoping review, we identify and analyze the main healthcare system and policy factors that guided and influenced COVID-19 vaccination deployment and uptake globally. Materials and Methods: JBI guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework were applied. Studies on individual COVID-19 vaccination factors, such as vaccine hesitancy, were excluded. The search was last conducted in May 2024 yielding 26,686 articles from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and COVID-19 websites. A total of 47 articles and 3 guidance documents were included. The results of the thematic analysis were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: The results found the following healthcare system and policy factors as integral to COVID-19 vaccination: types of vaccine products, healthcare workforce capacity, procurement strategies, distribution and cold-chain capacity, partnership, coordination, and leadership, information, communication, and registration strategies, delivery models, organizations, the existing health systems and policies on prioritization of at-risk groups and deployment plans. Discussion: Globally, COVID-19 vaccination programs responded to the pandemic by leveraging and reforming the existing healthcare systems, relying on strong leadership and global cooperation (such as the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Initiative). Deployment was enabled by effective communication and adoption of innovative technologies using data-driven policies to create high vaccine demand while overcoming limited vaccine supply and rapidly adapting to uncertainties.

Health Technology Assessment of Vaccines in Italy: History and Review of Applications

Background/Objectives. Many vaccines have been developed in recent decades, and many more will be available in the future. When new safe and effective vaccines are available, decision-makers must extensively assess them before including them in the national immunization plan and issuing recommendations. The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) could be an objective, transparent, and comprehensive approach to guiding the decision-making process for the use of vaccines. Objectives and Methods. The aim of this study was to review the indications for HTA use contained in Italian institutional documents on vaccination, namely the National Immunization Plans (NIPs) and available full Italian HTA reports on vaccines, assessing their availability at the time of national recommendations' introductions. Results. HTA has been recognised as an eligible approach to deciding upon the introduction of vaccines through the NIPs of 2012-2014 and 2017-2019, and the last NIP, of 2023-2025, highlights the lack of funding dedicated to the production of independent HTA reports that can be used for issuing recommendations. In 2007-2023, twenty full HTA reports on vaccines were published in Italy: eight reports on influenza vaccines, five on Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), three each on meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines, and one on rotavirus vaccine. HTA was applied with different purposes, namely the evaluation of new vaccines or their re-assessment, but it was not always timely with respect to both the marketing authorisation and the issuing of national recommendations for use. Conclusions. As HTA can be considered the best tool to disentangle the overall value of vaccines, it would be desirable for it to be used more and more to provide the evidence for efficient resource use. This calls for action to improve the transfer of HTA results to decision-makers, to try to fill the gap between research and decision and foster evidence-based recommendations.

Predictors of Global Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage - 219 Countries and Territories, December 2020-July 2022

What is already known about this topic?

The significant disparities in global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine coverage hamper the pace of epidemic control. There is a need to better understand the factors contributing to disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates across countries.

What is added by this report?

This report revealed significant associations between vaccination coverage and various country-level indicators. Better pandemic preparedness, higher levels of trust, and a lower proportion of young population aged 0-14 were strongly correlated with higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

What are the implications for public health practices?

Our findings emphasize the need for enhanced pandemic preparedness and governance, coupled with building trust in government and healthcare systems. It also needs to address the hesitancy of vaccinating children and adolescents aged 0-14 as the vaccination campaign progresses.

Changes in social mixing and attitudes and practices to precautionary measures in a maturing COVID-19 pandemic in six communities in Sudan: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

With low COVID-19 vaccination coverage, non-pharmaceutical interventions were critical to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic in Sudan. We explored changes in social contact patterns, risk perception, attitudes, and practices toward protective measures during an evolving COVID-19 outbreak in six illustrative communities in Sudan.

METHODS

This qualitative study took place in six communities in five Sudanese states using focus group discussions with community members and non-participant structured observations in public spaces between March 2021 and April 2021. A total of 117 participants joined 24 group discussions. We used a two-stage thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The perceived importance of compliance with individual preventative measures among those who believe in COVID-19 was higher than observed compliance with behaviors in most study sites. Adherence was consistently low and mainly driven by enforced movement restrictions. As restrictions were lifted, social contacts outside the household resumed pre-COVID-19 levels, and risk perception and individual and institutional adherence to protective measures diminished. We identified an environment that is socially and economically unsupportive of preventive practices, compounded by widespread rumours, misinformation, and mistrust in the government-led response. However, we identified new social habits that can contribute to reducing COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSION

The unfavourable social and economic environment, coupled with the low visibility of the pandemic and pandemic response, has likely modulated the influence of higher risk perception on adopting precautionary behaviours by individuals. Governments and non-governmental actors should increase the visibility of the pandemic and pandemic response, enforce and incentivise infection control measures in public areas, promote emerging preventive social habits, and actively track and address rumours and misinformation related to COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.

Economic evaluation of vaccination against COVID-19: A systematic review

Background and Aims

Coronavirus has burdened considerable expenditures on the different health systems. Vaccination programs, the critical solution against pandemic diseases, are known as safe and effective interventions to prevent and control epidemics. We aimed to perform a systematic review to provide economic evidence of the value of different types of vaccines available to combat the Covid-19 to all health policymakers worldwide.

Methods

Electronic searches conducted on Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and other economic evaluation databases. Related and published articles searched up to March 2022 by using keywords such as "Vaccination," "Covid-19," "Cost-benefit," "Cost-utility," "Cost-effectiveness," "Economic Assessment," and "Economic evaluation." Followed by choosing the most suitable articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, data captured and the results extracted. The quality assessment of the articles performed by the checklist of CHEERS 2022. Finally, 13 articles included in the review.

Results

All messenger RNA vaccines were dominant with approximately 70% coverage against no vaccination in the primary vaccination program except in one study that looked at booster effects. From a payer's perspective, a dollar invested in a vaccine would be less profitable than from a societal perspective. Therefore, primary mass vaccination can be considered a cost-effective intervention in primary vaccination to save more lives and produce more positive externalities. However, the cost-benefit ratio for all vaccines increases when statistical lifetime value and global economic and educational disadvantages are considered.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 primary vaccination programs in regional outbreaks, from a long-term perspective, will demonstrate substantial cost-effectiveness. It is suggested that due to the positive externalities of vaccination, primary mass vaccination, with the help of COVAX-19TM, could be considered a reliable way to combat viral epidemics compared to the loss of individual lives and economic and educational disturbances around the world.

Design and analysis heterogeneity in observational studies of COVID-19 booster effectiveness: A review and case study

We investigated the design and analysis of observational booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies by performing a scoping review of booster VE literature with a focus on study design and analytic choices. We then applied 20 different approaches, including those found in the literature, to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine. We identified 80 studies in our review, including over 150 million observations in total. We found that while protection against infection is variable and dependent on several factors including the study population and time period, both monovalent boosters and particularly the bivalent booster offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. In addition, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. In terms of design choices, we found that test-negative designs and their variants may offer advantages in statistical efficiency compared to cohort designs.

Association of selenium profile with neutralizing antibody response to inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Selenium profile has been related with humoral immune response after vaccination, but evidence with regard to inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to examine the relationship between selenium profile and neutralizing antibody response to inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

METHODS

Plasma selenium and selenoprotein P concentrations, neutralizing antibody against the wild-type and Omicron variant were measured at baseline and at 14 days, 98 days after the third dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

RESULTS

Neutralizing antibody against the wild-type and Omicron variant increased significantly after the third vaccination dose. Both higher plasma selenium and selenoprotein P were associated with increased neutralizing antibody against the wild-type strain at baseline. Moreover, higher plasma selenoprotein P was associated with increased neutralizing antibody against Omicron variant at baseline. However, nonsignificant association were observed after the third vaccine dose.

CONCLUSION

Higher selenium profile was associated with neutralizing antibody response before the third dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, but not after the third dose. Further prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

The protective effects of pediatric vaccination on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children stratified by vaccine status, types and virus variants

BACKGROUND

Few studies highlight the stratification of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness on MIS-C according to vaccine status, types and SARS-COV-2 variants.

METHODS

A web-based analysis was conducted through searches of PubMed, Web of Science and Medline databases from January 1, 2020, to May 16, 2023. The search terms used were (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children OR MIS-C OR PIMS OR PIMS-TS) AND (COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (vaccine OR vaccination) AND (children OR adolescents OR pediatric).

RESULTS

6701 children from 13 studies met the MIS-C definition. 92.1 % (1332/1446) of MIS-C cases were unvaccinated, whereas partial vaccination and full vaccination were 3.7 % (54/1446) and 4.2 % (60/1446)respectively. In the two studies encompassing 41 vaccinated MIS-C cases, 34 (82.9 %) received BNT162b2, 2 (4.9 %) received mRNA-1273, 4 (9.8 %) received Sinovac vaccine, and only one received a heterologous primary-boost regimen. Among 838 vaccinated MIS-C cases with different SARS-COV-2 variants, 23（2.8 %） were infected by the Wild-type, 80（9.5 %） by the Alpha variant, 521（62.2 %） by the Delta variant, and 214（25.5 %） by the Omicron variant. A significant difference was observed in vaccination rates among MIS-C cases across different variant pandemics (χ2 = 37.79, P < 0.001). The highest vaccination rate (26.3 %) occurred in the Alpha predominant period, thereafter dropped to 5.0 % in the Delta predominant period, and then increased to 12.6 % in the Omicron predominant period.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterologous vaccination might provide a slightly more protective effect than homologous manner for MIS-C. As the virus mutates over time, its pathogenicity to MIS-C degrades among vaccinated individuals.

Correlates of COVID-19 vaccination intentions and opinions about mandates among four groups of adults in South Africa with distinct vaccine intentions: evidence from a large national survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite a high number of recorded COVID-19 infections and deaths in South Africa, COVID-19 vaccine coverage remained low in March 2022, ten months into the national vaccine roll-out. This study provides evidence on the correlates of vaccine intentions, attitudes towards vaccination and opinions about mandates.

METHODS

We used data from the second COVID-19 Vaccine Survey (CVACS), a telephone survey conducted February-March 2022 among 3,608 South African adults who self-reported not being vaccinated against COVID-19. The survey instrument was designed in consultation with government, policymakers, and civil society; and segmented the sample into four distinct groups with different vaccine intentions (synonymous with vaccine hesitancy levels). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine the sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes and behaviours associated with the different vaccination intentions groups. Thematic coding of responses to open-ended questions elicited insights on reasons for not being vaccinated and attitudes towards mandates.

RESULTS

Intentions to get vaccinated were greater among individuals with lower socio-economic status (Mann-Whitney Z = -11.3, p < 0.001); those believing the vaccine protects against death (Kruskal-Wallis Χ2 = 494, p < 0.001); and those who perceived themselves at risk of COVID-19-related illness (Χ2 = 126, p < 0.01). Vaccine intentions were lower among individuals who believed that the vaccine causes death (Χ2 = 163, p < 0.001); believed that the vaccine is unsafe for the babies of pregnant/breastfeeding mothers, or the chronically ill (Χ2 = 123, p < 0.01); those not trusting government health information about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccine (Kendall's τ = -0.41, p < 0.01); and those in opposition to mandates (τ = 0.35, p < 0.001). Only 25% supported mandates, despite 48% thinking mandates would work well, with 54% citing individual rights as their main reason for mandate opposition.

CONCLUSION

The profile of individuals not vaccinated against COVID-19 as of March 2022 varied markedly by self-reported vaccination intentions, underscoring the importance of tailored demand-creation efforts. This paper highlights several factors which differ significantly across these groups. These findings could inform the design of future vaccination campaigns, potentially increasing their likelihood of success. This is an important policy objective given widespread vaccine hesitancy, and further work is required on this topic. Mandates remain an option to increase coverage but need to be carefully considered given extensive opposition.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide: WORLDCOV, a retrospective observational study

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in numerous deaths, great suffering, and significant changes in people's lives worldwide. The introduction of the vaccines was a light in the darkness, but after 18 months, a great disparity in vaccination coverage between countries has been observed. As disparities in vaccination coverage have become a global public health issue, this study aimed to analyze several variables to identify possible determinants of COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

An ecological study was conducted using pooled secondary data sourced from institutional sites. A total of 205 countries and territories worldwide were included. A total of 16 variables from different fields were considered to establish possible determinants of COVID-19 vaccination: sociodemographic, cultural, infrastructural, economic and political variables, and health system performance indicators. The percentage of the population vaccinated with at least one dose and the total doses administered per 100 residents on 15 June 2022 were identified as indicators of vaccine coverage and outcomes. Raw and adjusted values for delivered vaccine doses in the multivariate GLM were determined using R. The tested hypothesis (i.e., variables as determinants of COVID-19 vaccination) was formulated before data collection. The study protocol was registered with the grant number NCT05471635.

Results

GDP per capita [odds = 1.401 (1.299-1.511) CI 95%], access to electricity [odds = 1.625 (1.559-1.694) CI 95%], political stability, absence of violence/terrorism [odds = 1.334 (1.284-1.387) CI 95%], and civil liberties [odds = 0.888 (0.863-0.914) CI 95%] were strong determinants of COVID-19 vaccination. Several other variables displayed a statistically significant association with outcomes, although the associations were stronger for total doses administered per 100 residents. There was a substantial overlap between raw outcomes and their adjusted counterparts.

Discussion

This pioneering study is the first to analyze the association between several different categories of indicators and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in a wide complex setting, identifying strong determinants of vaccination coverage. Political decision-makers should consider these findings when organizing mass vaccination campaigns in a pandemic context to reduce inequalities between nations and to achieve a common good from a public health perspective.

Design and Analysis Heterogeneity in Observational Studies of COVID-19 Booster Effectiveness: A Review and Case Study

Background

Observational vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies based on real-world data are a crucial supplement to initial randomized clinical trials of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, there exists substantial heterogeneity in study designs and statistical methods for estimating VE. The impact of such heterogeneity on VE estimates is not clear.

Methods

We conducted a two-step literature review of booster VE: a literature search for first or second monovalent boosters on January 1, 2023, and a rapid search for bivalent boosters on March 28, 2023. For each study identified, study design, methods, and VE estimates for infection, hospitalization, and/or death were extracted and summarized via forest plots. We then applied methods identified in the literature to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine (MM), providing a comparison of the impact of different statistical methodologies on the same dataset.

Results

We identified 53 studies estimating VE of the first booster, 16 for the second booster. Of these studies, 2 were case-control, 17 were test-negative, and 50 were cohort studies. Together, they included nearly 130 million people worldwide. VE for all outcomes was very high (around 90%) in earlier studies (i.e., in 2021), but became attenuated and more heterogeneous over time (around 40%-50% for infection, 60%-90% for hospitalization, and 50%-90% for death). VE compared to the previous dose was lower for the second booster (10-30% for infection, 30-60% against hospitalization, and 50-90% against death). We also identified 11 bivalent booster studies including over 20 million people. Early studies of the bivalent booster showed increased effectiveness compared to the monovalent booster (VE around 50-80% for hospitalization and death).Our primary analysis with MM data using a cohort design included 186,495 individuals overall (including 153,811 boosted and 32,684 with only a primary series vaccination), and a secondary test-negative design included 65,992 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2. When different statistical designs and methods were applied to MM data, VE estimates for hospitalization and death were robust to analytic choices, with test-negative designs leading to narrower confidence intervals. Adjusting either for the propensity of getting boosted or directly adjusting for covariates reduced the heterogeneity across VE estimates for the infection outcome.

Conclusion

While the advantage of the second monovalent booster is not obvious from the literature review, the first monovalent booster and the bivalent booster appear to offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. Based on both the literature view and data analysis, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. Test-negative designs can extend to severe disease outcomes and may offer advantages in statistical efficiency when used properly.

Racism, colonialism and the implications for nursing scholarship: A discussion paper

AIM

A critical discussion of the intersections between racism and colonialism as social determinants of health and explore how these discriminatory ideologies shape nursing inquiry.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

A review of pertinent discourse on racism and colonialism in nursing from 2000 to 2022.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The failure to address health inequity plaguing racialized and marginalized populations locally and globally affects all groups, as illustrated in the COVID-19 pandemic. Racism and colonialism are inextricably linked, creating potent forces that influence nursing scholarship and adversely affect the health of a culturally and racially diverse society. Power differentials exist within and between countries creating structural challenges that lead to inequitable distribution of resources and othering. Nursing cannot be abstracted from the sociopolitical context in which it exists. There have been calls to address the social drivers that influence the health of the communities. More still needs to be done to support an antiracist agenda and decolonize nursing.

CONCLUSION

Nurses, as the largest healthcare workforce, can be critical in addressing health disparities. However, nurses have failed to eliminate racism within their ranks, and essentialism ideology has been normalized. A multidimensional approach that includes interventions aimed at nursing education, direct patient care, community health, nursing organizations and policy is needed to address problematic nursing discourse rooted in colonialism and racism ideologies. Since knowledge generated from scholarship informs nursing education, practice and policy, it is imperative to implement antiracist policies that eliminate racist assumptions and practices from nursing scholarship.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The paper is a discursive paper using pertinent nursing literature.

IMPACT

For nursing to attain its potential as a leader in healthcare, standards of scientific vigour should be embedded within history, culture and politics. Recommendations are provided on possible strategies to identify, confront and abolish racism and colonialism in nursing scholarship.

Humoral and cellular response induced by a second booster of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in adults

BACKGROUND

The Omicron variant has challenged the control of the COVID-19 pandemic due to its immuno-evasive properties. The administration of a booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine showed positive effects in the immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2, effect that is even enhanced after the administration of a second booster.

METHODS

During a phase-3 clinical trial, we evaluated the effect of a second booster of CoronaVac®, an inactivated vaccine administered 6 months after the first booster, in the neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 87). In parallel, cellular immunity (n = 45) was analyzed in stimulated peripheral mononuclear cells by flow cytometry and ELISPOT.

FINDINGS

Although a 2.5-fold increase in neutralization of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 was observed after the second booster when compared with prior its administration (Geometric mean units p < 0.0001; Geometric mean titer p = 0.0002), a poor neutralization against the Omicron variant was detected. Additionally, the activation of specific CD4⁺ T lymphocytes remained stable after the second booster and, importantly, equivalent activation of CD4⁺ T lymphocytes against the Omicron variant and the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 were found.

INTERPRETATION

Although the neutralizing response against the Omicron variant after the second booster of CoronaVac® was slightly increased, these levels are far from those observed against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and could most likely fail to neutralize the virus. In contrast, a robust CD4⁺T cell response may confer protection against the Omicron variant.

FUNDING

The Ministry of Health, Government of Chile, the Confederation of Production and Commerce, Chile and SINOVAC Biotech.NIHNIAID. The Millennium Institute on Immunology and Immunotherapy.

Global border restrictions in 2020-2021: Adherence and the effectiveness in long-term COVID-19 epidemic control

BACKGROUND

Restrictions on international travel were widely applied to contain cross-border COVID-19 diffusion, while such applications varied globally, and little was known about their impacts on the long-term epidemic progression.

METHODS

We explored the global diversity in maintaining border policies classified to four levels (screening, quarantine, ban on regions and total border closure) using data of 185 countries and regions between 01 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. By using Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and quantile regression (QR) models, we examined the relationship between total COVID-19 incidence and the cumulative duration of each policy level in 2020-2021, and the heterogeneity of such association across different transmission severity countries.

RESULTS

Firstly, "ban on regions" was the most durable policy applied in high-income countries, while in low-income countries, less stringent measures of screening and quarantine arrivals were applied the longest. Secondly, the cumulatively longer maintenance of the border quarantine was significantly associated with lower infections (log) in COVID-19 high-prevalent countries (75th QR, coefficient estimates [β] = -0.0038, 95% confidence interval: -0.0066 to -0.0010). By contrast, in medium and high transmission severity countries, those with longer duration of imposing bans on regions showed no suppressing effects but significantly higher COVID-19 incidence (OLS regression, β = 0.0028, 95% CI: 0.0009-0.0047; 75th QR, β = 0.0039, 95% CI: 0.0014-0.0063). No other significant results were found.

CONCLUSION

From the long-term perspective, inbound quarantine was effective in mitigating severe epidemics. However, in countries with medium or high COVID-19 prevalence, our findings of ban on regions highlighted its ineffectiveness in the long-term epidemic progression.

Factors associated with timely COVID-19 vaccination in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P < .001), residential instability (27.1% vs 23.0%, standardized difference = 0.094, P < .001), or material deprivation (22.1% vs 16.8%, standardized difference = 0.134, P < .001) and low socioeconomic status (20.9% vs 16.0%, standardized difference = 0.041, P < .001). The rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients from neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.84) and highest material deprivation (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) relative to those in more advantaged neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.

Determinants of COVID-19 cases and deaths in OECD countries

Aim

This research aims to examine the effects of variables that can affect COVID-19 deaths and cases in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries during the years 2020 (first wave), 2021 (vaccine available), and 2022 (vaccine available and Omicron variant appeared).

Material and method

The factors that are thought to affect the case and death rates in 37 OECD countries were examined by multiple linear regression analysis using SPSS 22. The dependent variables were the COVID-19 deaths and cases per 10,000 (in 2020, 2021, and 2022); the independent variables were universal health coverage, physicians, nurses, intensive care beds, hospital beds, non-communicable diseases mortality per 100,000 people, population over 65 years of age, out-of-pocket expenditure, private expenditure, and health expenditure per capita and percent of % GDP.

Results

It was determined that the non-communicable diseases mortality is the relatively important variable COVID-19 cases and deaths in 2020 and 2021. After controlling for the scores of other variables, according to the ß coefficients, a one-unit increase in the number of physicians variable increases COVID-19 cases by 1.14 units in 2022; a one-unit increase in the universal coverage variable decreases COVID-19 deaths by 0.33 units in 2022.

Conclusion

The results of this research provide evidence that the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak have changed between 2020, the first wave of the epidemic, 2021, when the vaccine is available, and 2022, when both the vaccine is available and the Omicron variant is seen. With the increase in vaccination in 2022, the impact of non-communicable diseases mortality on the number of COVID-19 cases has decreased.

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance to improve messages for vaccine uptake in indigenous populations in the central highlands of Guatemala: a participatory qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

As of July 2022, a little over one-third of Guatemalans were fully vaccinated. While COVID-19 vaccination rates are not officially reported nationally by racial/ethnic groups, non-governmental organisations and reporters have observed that COVID-19 vaccination rates are especially low among high-risk Indigenous populations. We conducted one of the first studies on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Indigenous populations in the Central Highlands of Guatemala, which aimed to better understand the barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake and how to improve vaccine promotional campaigns.

METHODS

In November 2021, we conducted eight focus group discussions (FGDs) with 42 Indigenous men and women and 16 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with community health workers, nurses and physicians in Chimaltenango and Sololá. Using a participatory design approach, our qualitative analysis used constant comparative methods to understand the inductive and deductive themes from the FGD and IDI transcripts.

RESULTS

We found three major overarching barriers to vaccination within the sampled population: (1) a lack of available easily understandable, linguistically appropriate and culturally sensitive COVID-19 vaccine information; (2) vaccine access and supply issues that prevented people from being vaccinated efficiently and quickly; and (3) widespread misinformation and disinformation that prey on people's fears of the unknown and mistrust of the medical establishment and government.

CONCLUSION

When developing COVID-19 vaccine messages, content should be culturally relevant, appropriate for low-literacy populations and in the languages that people prefer to speak. Promotional materials should be in multiple modalities (print, radio and social media) and also have specific Maya cultural references (dress, food and concepts of disease) to ensure messaging connects with intended targets. This study supports the need for more robust research into best practices for communicating about COVID-19 vaccines to marginalised communities globally and suggests that policy makers should invest in targeted local solutions to increase vaccine uptake.

Assessing the transition of COVID-19 burden towards the young population while vaccines are rolled out in China

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes most cases of severe illness and fatality in older age groups. Over 92% of the Chinese population aged ≥12 years has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (albeit with vaccines developed against historical lineages). At the end of October 2021, the vaccination programme has been extended to children aged 3-11 years. Here, we aim to assess whether, in this vaccination landscape, the importation of Delta variant infections could shift COVID-19 burden from adults to children. We developed an age-structured susceptible-infectious-removed model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to simulate epidemics triggered by the importation of Delta variant infections and project the age-specific incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections, cases, hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths. In the context of the vaccination programme targeting individuals aged ≥12 years, and in the absence of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the importation of Delta variant infections could have led to widespread transmission and substantial disease burden in mainland China, even with vaccination coverage as high as 89% across the eligible age groups. Extending the vaccination roll-out to include children aged 3-11 years (as it was the case since the end of October 2021) is estimated to dramatically decrease the burden of symptomatic infections and hospitalizations within this age group (39% and 68%, respectively, when considering a vaccination coverage of 87%), but would have a low impact on protecting infants. Our findings highlight the importance of including children among the target population and the need to strengthen vaccination efforts by increasing vaccine effectiveness.

Relative vaccine effectiveness of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine for preventing death in individuals with a primary regimen based on the BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1-S, or BNT162b2 vaccines during the Omicron wave in Peru: A nested case-control study using national population data

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported evidence about the effectiveness of a third dose with BNT162b2 for preventing hospitalization and death by COVID-19. However, there is little evidence regarding other primary vaccine schedules such as BBIBP-CorV and ChAdOx1-S. We estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) of the booster dose versus the primary regimens of COVID-19 vaccines based on BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1-S, or BNT162b2 for preventing death during the Omicron wave in Peruvian adult people.

METHODS

We carried out a nested case-control study with a risk set sampling of controls using data from Peru between December 20, 2021, and February 20, 2022 (during the Omicron wave). Data on vaccination, COVID-19 tests and deaths were collected from national surveillance databases. We performed conditional logistic regression models to estimate the RVE on the adult population. In addition, we executed sub-group analysis per age group (18 to 59 years, and 60 years or more) and per primary regime (based on BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, or ChAdOx1-S).

RESULTS

Of the 11,188,332 people eligible to enter the study 1,974 met the case definition (death from COVID-19) and were matched to 9,183 controls. The overall RVE of a third dose to prevent death was 87.2% (84.2%-89.7%), which varied according to the primary regime (87.3% for BNT162b2, 82.0% for BBIPB-CorV-2, and 79.5% for ChAdOx-S). In older adults, the RVE was 87.1%, without significant variations according to the primary regime (86.1% for BNT162b2, 86.1 for BBIBP-CorV, and 82% for ChAdOx-S).

CONCLUSIONS

The booster) dose of vaccine against COVID-19 had a high RVE for preventing death by COVID-19 in the Peruvian population in all primary regimes of vaccines during the Omicron wave. This effect was consistent in people over 60 years of age, the group most vulnerable to die from this infection.

Access to the COVID-19 Vaccine

As of 31 August 2022, 599,825,400 confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6,469,458 deaths have been reported globally [...].

COVID-19 trends, public restrictions policies and vaccination status by economic ranking of countries: a longitudinal study from 110 countries

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has transitioned to a third phase and many variants have been originated. There has been millions of lives loss as well as billions in economic loss. The morbidity and mortality for COVID-19 varies by country. There were different preventive approaches and public restrictions policies have been applied to control the COVID-19 impacts and usually measured by Stringency Index. This study aimed to explore the COVID-19 trend, public restriction policies and vaccination status with economic ranking of countries.

METHODS

We received open access data from Our World in Data. Data from 210 countries were available. Countries (n = 110) data related to testing, which is a key variable in the present study, were included for the analysis and remaining 100 countries were excluded due to incomplete data. The analysis period was set between January 22, 2020 (when COVID-19 was first officially reported) and December 28, 2021. All analyses were stratified by year and the World Bank income group. To analyze the associations among the major variables, we used a longitudinal fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of the 110 countries included in our analysis, there were 9 (8.18%), 25 (22.72%), 31 (28.18%), and 45 (40.90%) countries from low income countries (LIC), low and middle income countries (LMIC), upper middle income countries (UMIC) and high income countries (HIC) respectively. New case per million was similar in LMIC, UMIC and HIC but lower in LIC. The number of new COVID-19 test were reduced in HIC and LMIC but similar in UMIC and LIC. Stringency Index was negligible in LIC and similar in LMIC, UMIC and HIC. New positivity rate increased in LMIC and UMIC. The daily incidence rate was positively correlated with the daily mortality rate in both 2020 and 2021. In 2020, Stringency Index was positive in LIC and HIC but a negative association in LMIC and in 2021 there was a positive association between UMIC and HIC. Vaccination coverage did not appear to change with mortality in 2021.

CONCLUSION

New COVID-19 cases, tests, vaccinations, positivity rates, and Stringency indices were low in LIC and highest in UMIC. Our findings suggest that the available resources of COVID-19 pandemic would be allocated by need of countries; LIC and UMIC.

Effectiveness of containment strategies in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial resources deployed to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission, controlling the COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge. New variants of the virus are frequently emerging leading to new waves of infection and re-introduction of control measures. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of containment strategies implemented in the early phase of the pandemic.

METHODS

Real-world data for COVID-19 cases was retrieved for the period Jan 1 to May 1, 2020 from a number of different sources, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Facebook, Epidemic Forecasting and Google Mobility Reports. We analyzed data for 18 countries/regions that deployed containment strategies such as travel restrictions, lockdowns, stay-at-home requests, school/public events closure, social distancing, and exposure history information management (digital contact tracing, DCT). Primary outcome measure was the change in the number of new cases over 30 days before and after deployment of a control measure. We also compared the effectiveness of centralized versus decentralized DCT. Time series data for COVID-19 were analyzed using Mann-Kendall (M-K) trend tests to investigate the impact of these measures on changes in the number of new cases. The rate of change in the number of new cases was compared using M-K z-values and Sen's slope.

RESULTS

In spite of the widespread implementation of conventional strategies such as lockdowns, travel restrictions, social distancing, school closures, and stay-at-home requests, analysis revealed that these measures could not prevent the spread of the virus. However, countries which adopted DCT with centralized data storage were more likely to contain the spread.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralized DCT was more effective in containing the spread of COVID-19. Early implementation of centralized DCT should be considered in future outbreaks. However, challenges such as public acceptance, data security and privacy concerns will need to be addressed.