Search

MyChild Solution is an innovative Electronic Immunisation Register (EIR) reliant on Smart Paper Technology, thereby eliminating the need for electronic devices and internet connectivity at the point-of-care. The goal of this study is to characterise the quality of routine immunisation data generated using MyChild Solution compared to data obtained through the conventional health management information system (HMIS) used in The Gambia. We used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Data Quality Review (DQR) Toolkit to evaluate MyChild Solution's data quality in the 19 health facilities across two regions implementing MyChild Solution in The Gambia at the time of the evaluation. We evaluated all applicable data quality metrics as well as additional metrics of interest, including the incidence of recording errors, the incidence of incomplete indicator level data, and implausible dates. Where possible, we compared results to those of the conventional HMIS. Both MyChild Solution and the conventional HMIS produced 100% complete and timely data in their reference years. Both systems had no moderate or extreme outliers and showed the expected Penta 1 to Penta 3 dropout direction. However, the proportion of verification factors that are not acceptable was higher in the conventional HMIS. MyChild Solution was found to near perfectly (99.98%) digitise scanned documents. These and other data quality indicators evaluated demonstrate that MyChild Solution produces high quality data with high completeness, timeliness, and consistency compared to the conventional HMIS system. MyChild Solution produces high quality data as per the DQR Toolkit metrics and other metrics of interest of interest. The more internally consitent data produced through MyChild Solution compared to the conventional HMIS demonstrates its potential for supporting data-driven decision-making in immunisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presented the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations on the use of Rabies vaccines excerpted from the Rabies vaccines: WHO position paper – April 2018 published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1] This position paper replaces the 2010 WHO position paper on rabies vaccines [2] . It presents new evidence in the field of rabies and the use of rabies vaccines, focussing on programmatic feasibility, simplification of vaccination schedules and improved cost-effectiveness. The recommendations concern the 2 main immunization strategies, namely vaccination for post-exposure prophylaxis and vaccination for pre-exposure prophylaxis. In the context of post-exposure prophylaxis, recommendations are also provided on the use of rabies immunoglobulins. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation tables. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO’s current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of cholera vaccines were discussed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) in October 2017; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/presentations_background_docs/en/ . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of dengue vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on dengue vaccine - September 2018, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the July 2016 WHO position paper concerning the first licensed dengue vaccine, CYD-TDV [2]. The position paper presents new evidence that became available in November 2017. A retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials, using a new serological assay classified trial participants according to their dengue serostatus prior to receipt of the first vaccine dose. The analysis revealed an excess risk of severe dengue in seronegative vaccine recipients compared to seronegative non-vaccinated individuals, while confirming long-term protection in seropositive individuals [3]. The paper provides revised guidance on dengue vaccination strategies from a population health perspective. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of dengue vaccine CYD-TDV were discussed by SAGE in April 2018; evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2018/april/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abstract This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of measles vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on Measles vaccines: WHO position paper – April 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the 2009 WHO position paper on measles vaccines [2]. The position paper summarizes the most recent developments in the field of measles and includes removal of introduction criteria for the routine second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2), guidance on when to vaccinate infants from 6 months of age, and guidance on re-vaccination of HIV-infected children receiving highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of measles vaccines were discussed by SAGE in November 2013, October 2015 and October 2016; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2013/november/presentations%5fbackground%5fdocs/en/ , www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2015/october/presentations%5fbackground%5fdocs/en/ and www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/october/presentations_background_docs/en/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of hepatitis B vaccines excerpted from the Hepatitis B vaccines: WHO position paper, July 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (Hepatitis B vaccines, 2017) [1]. This position paper replaces the May 2009 WHO position paper on hepatitis B vaccines (Hepatitis B vaccines, 2009) [2]. The position paper gives updated information on hepatitis B vaccines and their storage, transport and deployment. The recommendations concern the target groups for vaccination and the appropriate schedules. In particular, the recommendations stress the importance of vaccination of all infants at birth as the most effective intervention for the prevention of hepatitis B virus-associated disease worldwide. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of hepatitis B vaccines were discussed by SAGE in October 2016; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/October/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article presented the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of Typhoid vaccines excerpted from the Typhoid vaccines: WHO position paper - March 2018 published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (World Health Organization, 2018) [1]. This position paper replaces the 2008 WHO position paper on typhoid vaccines (WHO, 2008) [2]. It re-emphasizes the importance of vaccination to control typhoid fever and presents the WHO recommendations on the use of a new generation of typhoid conjugate vaccines. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation tables. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of cholera vaccines were discussed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) in October 2017; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/October/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of malaria vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on malaria vaccine published in the Weekly epidemiological Record in January 2016 [1]. The current document is the first WHO position paper on malaria vaccination and focuses primarily on the available evidence concerning the only malaria vaccine having received a positive regulation assessment from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [2]. The position paper gives consideration to the epidemiological features of the disease and assesses the potential use of the vaccine for public health benefits. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence to recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the joint recommendation of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization and the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). These recommendations were discussed by SAGE and MPAC at the October 2015 SAGE meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) updated recommendations on the use of meningococcal vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on Meningococcal A conjugate vaccine: updated guidance, February 2015, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. A position paper on meningococcal vaccines was published in 2011 and its recommendations remain valid [2]. This update adds to the previous recommendations specifically concerning routine immunization of infants and young children in the African meningitis belt with meningococcal A conjugate vaccine. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of the Meningococcal A conjugate vaccine were discussed by SAGE in October 2014; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of fractional doses of yellow fever vaccines excerpted from the "Yellow fever vaccine: WHO position on the use of fractional doses - June 2017, Addendum to Vaccines and vaccination against yellow fever WHO: Position Paper - June 2013″, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1,2]. This addendum to the 2013 position paper pertains specifically to use of fractional dose YF (fYF) vaccination (fractional dose yellow fever vaccination refers to administration of a reduced volume of vaccine dose, which has been reconstituted as usual per manufacturer recommendations) in the context of YF vaccine supply shortages beyond the capacity of the global stockpile. The current WHO position on the use of yellow fever (YF) vaccine is set out in the 2013 WHO position paper on vaccines and vaccination against YF and those recommendations are unchanged. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of Yellow Fever vaccines were discussed by SAGE in October 2016; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/October/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of dengue vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on dengue vaccine published in the Weekly epidemiological Record in July 2016 (Dengue vaccine: WHO position paper, 2016) [1]. The current document is the first WHO position paper on dengue vaccination and focuses primarily on the available evidence concerning the only dengue vaccine to have been registered by National Regulatory Authorities. The position paper gives consideration to the epidemiological features of the disease and assesses the potential use of the vaccine for public health benefits. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation table. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. Recommendations on the use of this dengue vaccine were discussed by SAGE in April 2016; evidence presented at that SAGE meeting can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of Japanese Encephalitis (JE) vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on Japanese Encephalitis vaccines recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This updated position paper on JE vaccines replaces the 2006 position paper on this subject [2]; it focuses on new information concerning the availability, safety, immunogenicity and effectiveness of JE vaccines and the duration of protection they confer. Recent data on global prevalence and burden of disease caused by JE and cost-effectiveness considerations regarding JE vaccination are also summarized. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its October 2014 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2015 The World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of hepatitis E vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on hepatitis E vaccines - May 2015 recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. The current document is the first WHO position paper on hepatitis E vaccination and focuses primarily on the available evidence concerning the only hepatitis E vaccine that is currently licensed. The position paper gives consideration to the epidemiological features of the disease and assesses the use of the vaccine for public health benefits. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its October 2014 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2015 The World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for the use of varicella and herpes zoster vaccination from the WHO position paper on varicella and herpes zoster vaccines - June 2014, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the use of varicella and herpes zoster vaccines. The current document replaces the position paper on the use of varicella vaccines published in 1998 [2]. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2014 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2015 The World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for the use of vaccines against diseases caused by human papillomaviruses (HPV) from the WHO position paper on Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper - October 2014, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the most recent developments in the field of HPV vaccines and the WHO position on HPV vaccine schedules in females. This document replaces the first WHO position paper on vaccines against diseases caused by HPV published in 2009 [2]. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2014 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of yellow fever (YF) vaccination from "Vaccines and vaccination against yellow fever: WHO Position Paper - June 2013" published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the use of YF vaccination, in particular that a single dose of YF vaccine is sufficient to confer sustained life-long protective immunity against YF disease. A booster dose is not necessary. The current document replaces the position paper on the use of yellow fever vaccines and vaccination published in 2003. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2013 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for pain mitigation at the time of vaccination from the WHO position paper on reducing pain at the time of vaccination: WHO position paper-September 2015, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the evidence and integrates information pertaining to the reduction of pain, distress and fear during immunization across all age groups. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact, and on vaccination-related policy questions particularly concerning the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes. They summarize essential background information and conclude with the current WHO position. This position paper addresses a cross-cutting issue which is relevant for all injectable vaccines and reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2015 meeting. The evidence presented at the meetings can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

While the large majority of parents in the U.S. vaccinate their children according to the recommended immunization schedule, some parents have refused or delayed vaccinating, often citing safety concerns. In response to public concern, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) evaluated existing research regarding the safety of the recommended immunization schedule. The IOM concluded that although available evidence strongly supported the safety of the currently recommended schedule as a whole, additional observational research was warranted to compare health outcomes between fully vaccinated children and those on a delayed or alternative schedule. In addition, the IOM identified the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) as an important resource for conducting this research. Guided by the IOM findings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) commissioned a White Paper to assess how the VSD could be used to study the safety of the childhood immunization schedule. Guided by subject matter expert engagement, the resulting White Paper outlines a 4 stage approach for identifying exposure groups of undervaccinated children, presents a list of health outcomes of highest priority to examine in this context, and describes various study designs and statistical methods that could be used to analyze the safety of the schedule. While it appears feasible to study the safety of the recommended immunization schedule in settings such as the VSD, these studies will be inherently complex, and as with all observational studies, will need to carefully address issues of confounding and bias. In light of these considerations, decisions about conducting studies of the safety of the schedule will also need to assess epidemiological evidence of potential adverse events that could be related to the schedule, the biological plausibility of an association between an adverse event and the schedule, and public concern about the safety of the schedule., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of polio vaccination from the WHO position paper on polio vaccines - January 2014 recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the introduction of at least one dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into routine immunization schedules as a strategy to mitigate the potential risk of re-emergence of type 2 polio following the withdrawal of Sabin type 2 strains from oral polio vaccine (OPV). The current document replaces the position paper on the use of polio vaccines published in 2010 [2]. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO's current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its November 2013 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2014 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Sustainable financing for immunization refers to the sufficient and predictable allocation and use of resources to support the achievement of immunization goals within the framework of overall health financing. The Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) agenda spells out four important focus areas needed for sustainable financing: (1) ensuring sufficient and predictable resources, (2) making optimal use of resources, (3) aligning partnerships, and (4) supporting sustainable transitions from external assistance. This paper summarizes the evidence and proposes interventions under each area. While immunization is one of the best investments and justifies public financing, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and threatens countries' ability to mobilize funding to ensure continuity and access to essential services, including immunization. Strategies for ensuring adequate resources differ by income group but include raising more revenues, reprioritizing the budget towards health, and ensuring that health resources favor Primary Health Care (PHC) and immunization. In low- and lower-middle income countries, support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which channels the largest amount of external financing, will remain important, but some lower-middle income countries will need to prepare for transition. Countries benefitting from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) are also experiencing a transition from GPEI financing to domestic and other external financing. This paper outlines ways in which countries can improve the use of domestic and external resources to better incentivize high-quality PHC and immunization services and align immunization programs with health sector reforms. While governments must lead, collective action from development partners, the private sector, and civil society is needed to promote health system financing systems that ensure that the world is better prepared for future outbreaks and pandemics, while reinforcing the IA2030 vision and making progress towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhea in infants and young children. Live attenuated vaccines can lead to horizontal transmission with the risk of vaccine-derived disease in contacts. Transmission of pentavalent human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RV5) strains leading to clinical disease was not well evaluated in the pivotal clinical trials, and only a few case reports have been described in the literature. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate secondary transmission of RV5 strains to unvaccinated subjects globally. We searched Embase, Medline for English papers, CNKI, Wan Fang for Chinese papers, and other resources (i.e., conference papers with full text) from January 2005 to June 2021. Eligibility criteria for inclusion were original articles based on non-interventional studies (case-control studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies) using RV5 strain transmission as outcomes. Other study or publication types were excluded, such as pre-clinical studies, interventional studies and case reports. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and the JBI checklist for cross-sectional studies to assess the risk of bias. The search generated 2,089 articles in total. Seven articles met all inclusion criteria, including six cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. All studies underwent quality assessment and complied with the quality criteria of the NOS or JBI checklist, respectively. Overall, none of the seven studies identified RV5 vaccine-type transmission to an unvaccinated population, in either hospitals or nurseries under a close contact environment. One study reported that 1% of unvaccinated infants had gastrointestinal symptoms, but all symptoms were attributed to other clinical conditions. We found no evidence of horizontal transmission of RV5 strains to unvaccinated infants in a context of a limited amount and the descriptive nature of the identified studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Proposed a Multi Criteria Decision Making based Reverse Vaccinology model for predicting Bacterial Protective Antigens. • The proposed model tested on extracted physicochemical features from bacterial protein sequence. • Applied four strategies of Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique and Edited Nearest Neighbour to handle the data imbalance problem. • Consider MCDM-based TOPSIS and CRITIC methods for order preference with soft and hard ranking model. Reverse vaccinology (RV) is a significant step in sensible vaccine design. In recent years, many machine learning (ML) methods have been used to improve RV prediction accuracy. However, there are still issues with prediction accuracy and programme accessibility in ML-based RV. This paper presents a supervised ML-based method to classify bacterial protective antigens (BPAgs) and identify the model(s) that consistently perform well for the training dataset. Six ML classifiers are used for testing with physiochemical features extracted from a comprehensive training dataset. Selecting the best performing model from different performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC) has not been easy, because all the metrics has the same importance to predict BPAgs. To fix this issue, we propose a soft and hard ranking model based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for selecting the best performing ML method that classifies BPAgs. First, our proposed model uses homologous proteins (positive and negative samples) from Protegen and Uniprot databases. Second, we applied four strategies of Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique and Edited Nearest Neighbour (SMOTE-ENN) to handle the data imbalance problem and train the model using ML methods. Third, we consider MCDM-based technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) method integrated with soft and hard ranking model. The entropy is used to obtain weighted evaluation criteria for ranking the models. Our experimental evaluations show that the proposed method with best performing models (Random Forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting) outperforms compared to existing open-source RV methods using benchmark datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A global shift to bivalent mRNA vaccines is ongoing to counterbalance the diminishing effectiveness of the original monovalent vaccines due to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, yet substantial variation in the bivalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) exists across studies and a complete picture is lacking. We searched papers evaluating absolute or relative effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 type or BA.4/5 type bivalent mRNA vaccines on eight publication databases published from September 1st, 2022, to November 8th, 2023. Pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events (hospitalization and/or death) was estimated in reference to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses. From 630 citations identified, 28 studies were included, involving 55,393,303 individuals. Bivalent boosters demonstrated higher effectiveness against symptomatic or any infection for all ages combined, with an absolute VE of 53.5 % (95 % CI: –22.2–82.3 %) when compared to unvaccinated and relative VE of 30.8 % (95 % CI: 22.5–38.2 %) and 28.4 % (95 % CI: 10.2–42.9 %) when compared to ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively. The corresponding VE estimates for adults ≥ 60 years old were 22.5 % (95 % CI: 16.8–39.8 %), 31.4 % (95 % CI: 27.7–35.0 %), and 30.6 % (95 % CI: −13.2–57.5 %). Pooled bivalent VE estimates against severe events were higher, 72.9 % (95 % CI: 60.5–82.4 %), 57.6 % (95 % CI: 42.4–68.8 %), and 62.1 % (95 % CI: 54.6–68.3 %) for all ages, and 72.0 % (95 % CI: 51.4–83.9 %), 63.4 % (95 % CI: 41.0–77.3 %), and 60.7 % (95 % CI: 52.4–67.6 %) for adults ≥ 60 years old, compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively. The bivalent boosters demonstrated superior protection against severe outcomes than the original monovalent boosters across age groups, highlighting the critical need for improving vaccine coverage, especially among the vulnerable older subpopulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The MMR vaccine was included in the official vaccination schedule in Spain in 1981. Currently, most women of childbearing age are vaccinated and have not been naturally infected. Several studies have shown that vaccinated women have a lower antibody concentration than that achieved after natural infection, and a shorter duration of transplacentally acquired antibodies in their children. The objective of this study was to determine the antibody titer in mothers and their infants at birth and throughout the first year of life under current epidemiological circumstances. Single-center, observational, descriptive and prospective study conducted between October 2013 and December 2014. One sample of serum and another of a dried blood spot on filter paper were taken from each mother. Dried blood spot samples on filter paper were taken from the children at birth, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. In all the samples, levels of antibodies to the measles, rubella and mumps viruses were measured using standardized quantitative assays. 146 mother-child pairs were included. 78.4%, 86.9% and 67.1% of mothers had antibodies to measles, rubella and mumps, respectively. A decrease in the antibody titer in children was observed after 3 months, and no antibodies against the three diseases were detected by the age of 6 months. Comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between the antibody titers of children of mothers born before or after 1981 during the first year of their life. The rapid loss of transplacentally acquired antibodies against measles, rubella and mumps, under current epidemiological conditions, suggests that bringing the MMR vaccination forward to 9 months might be justified. Larger population studies are needed to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vaccine coverage against human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination remains low in France. The objective of this study was to study adolescent perceptions by comparing boys and girls, in order to build effective school-based interventions. This paper presents a cross-sectional study in French middle school pupils. They completed online questionnaires on their knowledge and attitudes toward the HPV vaccine, HPV vaccination status, their intention, reasons to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and psychological antecedents of vaccination. A structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used to test the hypothesized model. The participants are 818 pupils aged from 12 to 16 years (M age = 13.78). Most pupils were in the pre-contemplative stage (62.7 % of boys and 40.8 % of girls). SEM analysis indicated that the relationship between the level of HPV knowledge, the representations of vaccines in general, and vaccine intention was mediated by attitudes towards the HPV vaccine among both boys and girls. These findings reveal a high percentage of boys who do not feel concerned by the HPV vaccine and highlight the need to consider the psychological antecedents of vaccination in general in addition to the specific attitudes to the HPV vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Country ownership is one of the four guiding principles for the Immunization Agenda 2030. • There is little practical guidance on what country ownership is and how to operationalize it. • Measles and rubella programs are used to illustrate country ownership in operation. • Five elements of country ownership - commitment, coordination, capacity, community participation, and accountability - are described. • Our work is a useful guide for immunization program strategy development. Country-owned, as opposed to donor-driven, is a principle within the development sector that recognizes the centrality of countries' leadership, systems, and resources in executing programs and achieving sustainable development. In alignment with this notion, the Immunization Agenda 2030 was developed with country ownership as one of four core principles of the ambitious ten-year plan. This means that the success of immunization programs, including those with eradication and elimination goals such as polio, measles, and rubella, and those with broader equity goals to "leave no one behind" on immunization, would be largely driven by country systems. In this paper we deconstruct country ownership into five operational principles: commitment, coordination, capacity, community participation, and accountability. Through this lens, we illustrate how two countries, Nepal and Nigeria, have exemplified country ownership in their measles and rubella elimination programs and we infer the ways in which country ownership drives system performance and sustains program efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been increasing recognition of vaccine access challenges in middle-income countries and the need for increased action, particularly in countries that are not eligible for or have transitioned out of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance support. These countries' immunization systems are more vulnerable than ever as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates existing programme challenges, increasing the risk of delayed vaccine introductions, backsliding immunization coverage rates, and increased coverage inequity. The potential health and equity impact of improving immunization outcomes in middle-income countries is substantial. Modelling suggests that the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and vaccines for rotavirus and human papillomavirus in this set of Gavi-transitioned and non-Gavieligible middle-income countries in 2020 could have saved an estimated 70,000 lives if 90 % coverage had been reached. Further, increasing coverage for already-introduced vaccines to 90 % could have saved an additional estimated 16,000 lives. Over the past decade, stakeholders have made considerable efforts to identify immunization challenges in middle-income countries as documented in the 2015 SAGE-endorsed Shared Partner Middle-Income Country Strategy. In the coming decade, new global platforms like Gavi 5.0 and the Immunization Agenda 2030 provide opportunities to align on MIC strategies and provide coordinated global support to middle-income countries. The international COVID-19 pandemic response has the potential to lay the foundation for long term support beyond the scope of COVID-19 to non-Gavi eligible middle-income countries. Meanwhile regional mechanisms to address immunization barriers in middle-income countries have grown in number and strength, offering sustainable platforms for cross-country collaboration and the provision of tailored technical support. To ensure that these opportunities are successfully acted upon and that middle-income countries achieve the Immunization Agenda 2030 goals, comprehensive, multi-stakeholder consultations were conducted to identify areas of action with the greatest potential to accelerate immunization progress. Stakeholders should work together to put these findings, highlighted in this paper, into action, adapting their approaches to specific country contexts and learning from and building on existing efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Lack of expertise, integrating policy recommendations, and visibility were challenges. • Collaboration, linkages to policymakers, and effective communication were opportunities. • Optimizing the Regional NITAG Network is one of the most promising ways forward. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Americas faced a significant decline in vaccination coverage as well as increased vaccine hesitancy. The objective of this paper is to summarize the challenges and opportunities outlined by the National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and prioritize targeted interventions. The exploratory survey included open-ended questions on two primary components: challenges, and opportunities. Free-text comments presented by each NITAG were collated and classified using indicators and sub-indicators of the NITAG Maturity Assessment Tool (NMAT). Opportunities were classified thematically, and priority actions were generated from the responses. All 21 NITAGs in LAC, representing 40 countries, 76 % of which have been active for over a decade, responded to the survey. The most common challenges were establishment and composition (62 %), integration into policymaking (62 %), resources and secretariat (52 %), and stakeholder recognition (48 %). The distribution of responses was seen across the whole sample and did not suggest a more pronounced need in relation to year of establishment. Opportunities included maximizing the Regional NITAG Network of the Americas (RNA) to facilitate collaboration, information sharing, visibility, and communication; existing global, regional, and systemic analyses; the World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization (WHO/PAHO) templates for standard operating procedures; twinning programs with mature NITAGs; and NITAGs in governance structures. Action plans were outlined to formalize the establishment of NITAGs and broaden their composition; strengthen decision-making and access to data resources; and enhance the credibility of evidence-based recommendations and their uptake by policymakers and the public. NITAG challenges are not unique to LAC. NITAGs have outlined a short-term prioritized action plan which is critical to enhancing NITAG value and importance in countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Parents' migration status is associated with infant's timely vaccination. • Having a foreign-born mother is positively associated with infant's timely vaccination. • Having a foreign-born father is positively associated with infant's timely vaccination. • Among migrant population, odds of timely vaccination decreases as length of stay increases. • Future research may explore factors behind lower rates of timely vaccination among settled migrants. Migration has been recognized as an important determinant of child health outcomes including childhood vaccination status. This paper aims to examine the association between parental migration status and a less studied aspect of child immunization outcomes, namely timeliness, within the context of New Zealand (NZ), a country characterized by a substantial proportion of its resident population born overseas. Additionally, the study explored the impact of residential duration on children's immunization timeliness. The data was taken from a large, representative population-based cohort study in NZ (Growing Up in NZ study). A total of 6156 children and their parents, comprising 2241 foreign-born and 3915 NZ-born mothers and a sub-group of their partners were included in the analysis. The survey data was linked with the National Immunization Register dataset. Timely immunization was defined as receiving two vaccines at each scheduled vaccination point (at six-week, three-month, and five-month, totaling six doses of vaccines) within 30 days of their due date. We examined the associations between parental migration status, maternal residential duration, and child immunization timeliness while controlling for socio-economic variations. The results were presented as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). The findings revealed that after adjustment for socioeconomic differences, children of foreign-born mothers exhibited higher odds of receiving all six studied vaccine doses on time compared to children of native-born mothers (AOR 1.51, 95 %CI:1.27–1.78). Similarly, having a foreign-born father was also significantly associated with timely completion of all six vaccine doses. Children of recent immigrants who had resided in the country for less than five years demonstrated higher odds of timely vaccination of all six vaccine doses compared to children of settled immigrants who had lived in the country for five or more years (AOR 1.65, 95 %CI: 1.25–2.19). This study revealed a significant pattern in NZ where immigrants exhibited higher rates of timely immunization for their children compared to native-born parents. However, the findings also underscore the importance of providing support to settled immigrants, as their children experienced declines in timely vaccination rates compared to children of recent immigrants and even those born to NZ-born parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of an effective combined vaccine represents a crucial strategy for preventing outbreaks of infectious diseases and reducing the burden on healthcare resources. Developing a combined vaccine against both influenza and the coronavirus is a promising approach, but it is still in the early stages of development. This paper reports on a novel combined pentavalent candidate vaccine that has shown promising results in mice, with statistically significant differences in mean antibody titer against the coronavirus and the influenza antigens compared to placebo. We have shown that the coronavirus antigen is capable of inducing an immune response autonomously, regardless of the presence of the influenza antigens in a combined vaccine. On the other hand, the presence of the coronavirus antigen in a combined vaccine showed to enhance the immune response against some of the studied influenza antigens, suggesting that these antigens may act in synergy and elicit an enhanced immune response. The absence of dose-dependent difference in mean antibody titer within the same antigenic groups of vaccine preparations suggested that even small amounts of the coronavirus and the influenza antigens could induce an immune response just as good as high-dose vaccine preparations, which certainly has important safety and cost implications. The vaccine is soon to be ready for clinical trials and mass production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed and implemented the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry (C19VPR) to monitor vaccine safety. Potential participants who received a COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy or up to 30 days prior to their pregnancy-associated last menstrual period were eligible to participate in the registry, which monitored health outcomes of participants and their infants through phone interviews and review of available medical records. Data for select outcomes, including birth defects, were reviewed by clinicians. In certain cases, medical records were used to confirm and add detail to participant-reported health conditions. This paper serves as a description of CDC C19VPR protocol. We describe the development and implementation for each data collection aspect of the registry (i.e., participant phone interviews, clinical review, and medical record abstraction), data management, and strengths and limitations. We also describe the demographics and vaccinations received among eligible and enrolled participants. There were 123,609 potential participants 18–54 years of age identified from January 2021 through mid-June 2021; 23,339 were eligible and enrolled into the registry. Among these, 85.3 % consented to medical record review for themselves and/or their infants. Participants were majority non-Hispanic White (79.1 %), residents of urban areas (93.3 %), and 48.3 % were between 30 and 34 years of age. Most participants completed the primary series of vaccination by the end of pregnancy (89.7 %). Many participants were healthcare personnel (44.8 %), possibly due to the phased roll-out of the vaccination program. The registry continues to provide important information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people, a population with higher risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 who were not included in pre-authorization clinical trials. Lessons learned from the registry may guide development and implementation of future vaccine safety monitoring efforts for pregnant people and their infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sisonke 2 study provided a homologous boost at least 6 months after administration of the priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S for healthcare workers enrolled on the Sisonke phase 3b implementation study. Safety monitoring was via five reporting sources: (i.) self-report through a web-link; (ii.) paper-based case report forms; (iii.) a toll-free telephonic reporting line; (iv.) healthcare professionals-initiated reports; and (v.) active linkage with National Disease Databases. A total of 2350 adverse events were reported by 2117 of the 240 888 (0.88%) participants enrolled; 1625 of the 2350 reported events are reactogenicity events and 28 adverse events met seriousness criteria. No cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia syndrome were reported; all adverse events including thromboembolic disorders occurred at a rate below the expected population rates apart from one case of Guillain Barre Syndrome and one case of portal vein thrombosis. The Sisonke 2 study demonstrates that two doses of Ad26.COV2.S is safe and well tolerated; and provides a feasible model for national pharmacovigilance strategies for low- and middle-income settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]