Public Preferences for Policies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens’ preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase.ResultsRespondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination.ConclusionsThis study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported.     

Vaccines.gov – Your Best Shot at Health

The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) manages <www.vaccines.gov> and is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Vaccines.gov offers reliable information from the federal government on vaccines, immunizations, and vaccine-preventable diseases. The web site works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and many other government agencies to ensure all information on the web site is accurate and relevant. The web site encourages readers to share the information on the site with friends, family, and patients to promote health literacy on vaccines.     

One or two doses of hepatitis A vaccine in universal vaccination programs in children in 2020: A systematic review

BackgroundHepatitis A virus (HAV) is a global health concern as outbreaks continue to occur. Since 1999, several countries have introduced universal vaccination (UV) of children against HAV according to approved two-dose schedules. Other countries have implemented one-dose UV programs since 2005; the long-term impact of this schedule is not yet known.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in four electronic databases for data published between January 2000 and July 2019 to assess evidence for one-dose and two-dose UV of children with non-live HAV vaccines and describe their global impact on incidence, mortality, and severity of hepatitis A, vaccine effectiveness, vaccine efficacy, and antibody persistence.ResultsOf 3739 records screened, 33 peer-reviewed articles and one conference abstract were included. Rapid declines in incidence of hepatitis A and related outcomes were observed in all age groups post-introduction of UV programs, which persisted for at least 14 years for two-dose and six years for one-dose programs according to respective study durations. Vaccine effectiveness was ≥95% over 3–5 years for two-dose programs. Vaccine efficacy was >98% over 0.1–7.5 years for one-dose vaccination. Antibody persistence in vaccinated individuals was documented for up to 15 years (≥90%) and ten years (≥74%) for two-dose and one-dose schedules, respectively.ConclusionExperience with two-dose UV of children against HAV is extensive, demonstrating an impact on the incidence of hepatitis A and antibody persistence for at least 15 years in many countries globally. Because evidence is more limited for one-dose UV, we were unable to draw conclusions on immune response persistence beyond ten years or the need for booster doses later in life. Ongoing epidemiological monitoring is essential in countries implementing one-dose UV against HAV. Based on current evidence, two doses of non-live HAV vaccines are needed to ensure long-term protection.     

Concurrent and cross-season protection of inactivated influenza vaccine against A(H1N1)pdm09 illness among young children: 2012–2013 case–control evaluation of influenza vaccine effectiveness

In 2012–2013, we examined 1729 laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza cases matched 1:1 with healthy controls and estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) to be 67% (95% confidence interval = 58–74%) for ages 8 months to 6 years old. Among children aged 8–35 months old, VE for fully vaccinated children (73%, 60–81%) was significantly higher than VE for partially vaccinated children (55%, 33–70%). Significant cross-season protection from prior IIV3 was noted, including VE of 31% (8–48%) from IIV3 received in 2010–2011 against influenza illness in 2012––2013 without subsequent boosting doses.     

Assessment of preparation time with fully-liquid versus non-fully liquid paediatric hexavalent vaccines. A time and motion study

Background and aimsSimplified vaccine preparation steps would save time and reduce potential immunisation errors. The aim of the study was to assess vaccine preparation time with fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T, Sanofi Pasteur MSD) versus non-fully liquid hexavalent vaccine that needs reconstitution (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals).MethodsNinety-six Health Care Professionals (HCPs) participated in a randomised, cross-over, open-label, time and motion study in Belgium (2014). HCPs prepared each vaccine in a cross-over manner with a wash-out period of 3–5 min. An independent nurse assessed preparation time and immunisation errors by systematic review of the videos. HCPs satisfaction and preference were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire.ResultsAverage preparation time was 36 s for the fully-liquid vaccine and 70.5 s for the non-fully liquid vaccine. The time saved using the fully-liquid vaccine was 34.5 s (p ≤ 0.001). On 192 preparations, 57 immunisation errors occurred: 47 in the non-fully liquid vaccine group (including one missing reconstitution of Hib component), 10 in the fully-liquid vaccine group. 71.9% of HCPs were very or somewhat satisfied with the ease of handling of both vaccines; 66.7% and 67.7% were very or somewhat satisfied with speed of preparation in the fully-liquid vaccine and the non-fully liquid vaccine groups, respectively. Almost all HCPs (97.6%) stated they would prefer the use of the fully-liquid vaccine in their daily practice.ConclusionsPreparation of a fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine can be completed in half the time necessary to prepare a non-fully liquid vaccine. The simplicity of the fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine preparation helps optimise reduction of immunisation errors.