Search

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on tetanus vaccines - February 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the May 2006 WHO position paper on tetanus vaccines (Tetanus vaccines: WHO position paper, 2006). The position paper summarizes the recent developments in the field of tetanus prevention and provides revised guidance on the optimal timing of recommended tetanus vaccine booster doses. 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 TT-containing vaccines (TTCVs) were discussed by SAGE in October 2016; evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/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 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) recommendations on the use of cholera vaccines excerpted from the Cholera vaccines: WHO position paper, August 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (Cholera vaccine, 2017) [1]. This position paper replaces the 2010 WHO position paper on cholera vaccines (Cholera vaccine, 2010) [2]. It incorporates the most recent evidence on cholera vaccination and provides revised recommendations on the target populations for cholera immunization. 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 cholera vaccines were discussed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) in April 2017; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/April/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) 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 presented the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of on Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine excerpted from the BCG vaccines: WHO position paper - February 2018 published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the 2004 WHO position paper on Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine [2] and the 2007 WHO revised BCG vaccination guidelines for infants at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection [3]. It incorporates recent developments in the tuberculosis (TB) field, provides revised guidance on the immunization of children infected with HIV, and re-emphasizes the importance of the birth dose. This position paper also includes recommendations for the prevention of leprosy. 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 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 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.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for the use of vaccines against Bordetella pertussis from the WHO position paper on Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper--August 2015, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2015;90(August(35)):433-60). This position paper summarizes the most recent developments in the field of pertussis disease and its prevention by vaccination. It includes the WHO position on the choice of Pertussis vaccine as well as on the use of additional strategies, particularly vaccination during pregnancy, for prevention of early infant mortality. This document replaces the first WHO position paper on vaccines against disease caused by Pertussis published in 2010 (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2010;85(October(40)):385-400) and incorporates the revised guidance on the choice of pertussis vaccines published in July 2014 (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2014;89(July(30)):337-44). 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 and April 2015 meetings. The evidence presented at the meetings can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 The World Health Organization. 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 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.)

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination from the WHO position paper on H. influenzae type b (Hib) Vaccination - July 2013 recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the inclusion of Hib vaccines in all national immunization programmes, recent developments in the field and the potential of different Hib immunization schedules to further reduce morbidity and mortality. The current document replaces the position paper on the use of Hib vaccines published in 2006 [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 2013 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of rotavirus vaccination from the WHO position paper on rotavirus vaccines - January 2013 recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the inclusion of rotavirus vaccines in all national immunization programmes and recent developments in the field, in particular the potential of rotavirus vaccines to further reduce mortality by employing more flexible immunization schedules. The current document replaces the position paper on the use of rotavirus vaccines published in 2007 [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 2012 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2013 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the WHO recommendations on the use of rabies vaccines excerpted from the recently published Rabies vaccines: WHO position paper. This document replaces the WHO position paper entitled Rabies vaccines WHO position paper published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record in December 2007. Footnotes to this paper provide a limited number of core references; their abstracts as well as a more comprehensive list of references may be found at http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/positionpapers/en/index.html. Grading tables which assess the quality of scientific evidence for key conclusions are also available through this link and are referenced in the position paper. 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 updated paper reflects the recent recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization, or SAGE., (Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 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 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends early childhood vaccinations, but knowledge is limited about the magnitude and timing of vaccine delay for each recommended dose on a population level. We sought to characterize longitudinal patient-level patterns of early childhood vaccination schedule adherence., Methods: Using the Merative MarketScan Commercial Database (2009-2019), we identified commercially-insured infants who received at least one timely dose of a 2-month recommended vaccine. We categorized the number of recommended vaccines administered on the same date at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age (grace period: -7, +21 days). A Sankey diagram illustrated the number of vaccines received concomitantly during each age window and depicted transitions to different states over time (e.g., no vaccine delay to vaccine delay). For each vaccine dose, we estimated the cumulative incidence of receipt., Results: Among 1,239,364 eligible children, 28% of infants aged 4 months and 38% of infants aged 6 months did not receive timely, concomitant administration of all recommended vaccines. The number of timely vaccines received concomitantly and age at receipt varied most for doses recommended during the second year of life. Children with a previously delayed (versus timely) dose consistently experienced longer time to subsequent dose., Conclusions: National coverage improved over time for all recommended vaccine doses under study, most notably for measles, mumps, and rubella. However, many children do not receive vaccines on schedule. Interventions to maintain adherence to the recommended schedule are needed early in life., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JGN and AMB have received investigator-initiated research contracts from Merck on topics unrelated to this article. At the time this research was conducted, LJM was an employee of and owned stock in NoviSci. She is now an employee and owns stock in Pfizer. No other authors have conflicts of interest to disclose. All authors attest they meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Anne Butler reports financial support and administrative support were provided by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Anne Butler reports financial support was provided by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Anne Butler reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc. that includes: funding grants. Jason Newland reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc. that includes: funding grants. Leah McGrath reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: employment and equity or stocks. Leah McGrath reports a relationship with NoviSci that includes: employment and equity or stocks. JGN and AMB have received investigator-initiated research contracts from Merck on topics unrelated to this article. At the time this research was conducted, LJM was an employee of and owned stock in NoviSci. She is now an employee and owns stock in Pfizer. No other authors have conflicts of interest to disclose. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Major barriers to addressing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy include limited knowledge of what causes delay/refusal of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and limited ability to predict who will remain unvaccinated over significant time periods despite vaccine availability. The present study begins to address these barriers by developing a machine learning model that prospectively predicts who will persist in not vaccinating against SARS-CoV-2., Method: Unvaccinated individuals (n = 325) who completed a baseline survey were followed over the six-month period when vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were first widely available (April-October 2021). A random forest model was used to predict who would remain unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 from their baseline measures, including demographic information (e.g., age), medical history (e.g., of influenza vaccination), Health-Belief Model constructs (e.g., perceived vaccine dangerousness), conspiracist ideation, and task-based metrics of vulnerability to conspiracist ideation (e.g., tendency toward illusory pattern perception)., Results: The resulting model significantly predicted vaccination status (AUC-PR = 0.77, 95%CI [0.56 0.90]). At the optimal probability threshold determined by the Generalized Threshold Shifting Protocol, the model was moderately precise (0.83) when identifying individuals who remained unvaccinated (n = 80), and had a very low rate (0.04) of false-positives (incorrectly suggesting that individuals remained unvaccinated). Permutational importance tests suggested that baseline SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions conveyed the most information about future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status. Conspiracist ideation was the second most informative predictor, suggesting that misinformation influences vaccination behavior. Other important predictors included perceived vaccine dangerousness, as expected under the Health Belief Model, and influenza vaccination history., Conclusions: The model we developed can accurately and prospectively identify individuals who remain unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. It could therefore facilitate empirically-informed allocation of interventions that encourage vaccine uptake. The predictive value of conspiracist ideation, perceived vaccine dangerousness, and vaccine intentions in our model is consistent with potential causal relations between these variables and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Pertussis vaccination in pregnancy has been introduced in an increasing number of countries to better protect infants against the disease in their first weeks of life. The optimal timing of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy is however still under debate., Methods: We systematically reviewed published literature on safety, immunogenicity and effectiveness of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy related to timing of vaccination. The search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science and yielded 1623 articles, thereof 777 duplicates. Screening resulted in the inclusion of 45 publications reporting on safety (n = 11), immunogenicity (n = 26) and/or effectiveness (n = 9). We also mapped pertussis recommendations in pregnancy by government institutions globally according to the recommended timing of vaccination., Results: Overall, the selected publications did not indicate increased safety concerns associated with timing of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. Immunogenicity studies often suggested optimal protection at birth after early third trimester vaccination. Few studies investigated qualitative antibody characteristics, and none investigated antibody titers in breastmilk or cellular-mediated immunity related to timing of vaccination. Effectiveness studies showed decreased vaccine effectiveness of late third trimester pertussis vaccination compared to vaccination earlier in pregnancy. Worldwide, a general recommendation for pertussis vaccination in pregnancy was found for 58 countries, with as many as 22 different recommended timings registered., Conclusion: The timing of pertussis vaccination in pregnancy seems to impact immunogenicity and vaccine effectiveness, with optimal immune responses at birth suggested following early third trimester vaccination and reduced vaccine effectiveness of late third trimester pertussis vaccination suggested compared to vaccination earlier in pregnancy. However, inconsistent and lacking data are reflected in the divergent national recommendations for pertussis vaccination in pregnancy worldwide., Summary: Pertussis vaccination in pregnancy aims to protect infants in their first weeks of life. Our review suggests that immunogenicity and vaccine effectiveness are impacted by the timing of vaccination in pregnancy. National recommendations for pertussis vaccination in pregnancy vary widely worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Our study aims to investigate the dynamics of conventional memory T cells (Tconv) and regulatory memory T cells (Treg) following activation, and to explore potential differences between these two cell types. To achieve this, we developed advanced statistical mixed models based on mathematical models of ordinary differential equations (ODE), which allowed us to transform post-vaccination immunological processes into mathematical formulas. These models were applied to in-house data from a de novo Hepatitis B vaccination trial. By accounting for inter- and intra-individual variability, our models provided good fits for both antigen-specific Tconv and Treg cells, overcoming the challenge of studying these complex processes. Our modeling approach provided a deeper understanding of the immunological processes underlying T cell development after vaccination. Specifically, our analysis revealed several important findings regarding the dynamics of Tconv and Treg cells, as well as their relationship to seropositivity for Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (HSV-1) and Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), and the dynamics of antibody response to vaccination. Firstly, our modeling indicated that Tconv dynamics suggest the existence of two T cell types, in contrast to Treg dynamics where only one T cell type is predicted. Secondly, we found that individuals who converted to a positive antibody response to the vaccine earlier had lower decay rates for both Tregs and Tconv cells, which may have important implications for the development of more effective vaccination strategies. Additionally, our modeling showed that HSV-1 seropositivity negatively influenced Tconv cell expansion after the second vaccination, while EBV seropositivity was associated with higher Treg expansion rates after vaccination. Overall, this study provides a critical foundation for understanding the dynamic processes underlying T cell development after vaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Benson Ogunjimi reports financial support was provided by European Research Council. Benson Ogunjimi reports financial support was provided by Research Foundation Flanders. Philippe Beutels reports financial support was provided by University of Antwerp. Pierre Van Damme reports financial support was provided by University of Antwerp. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: BO declares that the University Hospital Antwerpen and the University of Antwerp have received investigator-initiated grants from Abbvie, Pfizer and Roche. BO is a shareholder and member of the board of ImmuneWatch BV. NH declares that the Universities of Antwerp and Hasselt have received funding for advisory boards and research projects of MSD, GSK, JnJ, Pfizer and the European Commission’s IMI programme outside the proposed work. NH has not received any personal remuneration. PB declares the University of Antwerp received compensation for unrelated consultancy for Pfizer in 2019, research grants from MSD and Pfizer, and the European Commission’s IMI programme. PB has not received any personal remuneration. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. KL is a shareholder and member of the board of ImmuneWatch BV. PM is a shareholder, employee and member of the board of ImmuneWatch BV. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The association between maternal COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and factors such as high risk for severe COVID-19, pre-existing asthma, prior adverse reproductive history, or paternal COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, remains unclear. The aim of this study is two-fold: (i) to describe uptake of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy by maternal risk for severe COVID-19 and asthma, and (ii) to comprehensively examine individual and familial factors associated with vaccine uptake during pregnancy in Norway. Based on nation-wide registry-linkage data in Norway, we included 101,659 deliveries with gestational length ≥12 weeks, in 2021-2022. Our outcome measure was uptake of at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, using a narrow (first ever dose) and broad (any dose) definition. We fit univariate and multivariate modified Poisson regression models, clustered by county of residency and adjusted for calendar time, to estimate risk ratios (RR) with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs). Gestational uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine dose increased from <1 % before mid Aug-2021, to 38.8 % in the rest of 2021, and 48.9 % in 2022. Only 28.8 % and 33.9 % pregnant individuals with high risk for severe COVID-19 or asthma, respectively, received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Paternal COVID-19 vaccination was strongly associated with greater vaccine uptake by pregnant individuals (adjusted RR: 7.2, 95 % CI: 6.8-7.5). Maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection pre-pregnancy (adjusted RR: 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.26, 0.37), familial and individual migrant status were associated with a considerable decreased likelihood of vaccine uptake in pregnancy. History of miscarriage or pregnancy with congenital anomaly were not associated with vaccine uptake. Despite rising COVID-19 vaccine rates in pregnancy, uptake remained low for high-risk individuals. Paternal vaccination, pre-pregnancy infection, migration status, and maternal citizenship were strongly associated with prenatal vaccine uptake. This knowledge can inform tailoring of future vaccination campaigns., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Angela Lupattelli reports financial support was provided by European Union. This work is part of the VERDI project (101045989) which is funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To identify sociodemographic factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in a universal, in-school HPV vaccination program, among grade 6 and 9 students in the regional health authority of Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), British Columbia (BC), Canada during the 2021/22 school year. VCH operates within the southwest corner of the province of BC serving a mix of urban and rural regions. HPV vaccine is offered in school to all grade 6 students using a two-dose series, with catch up immunizations offered to students in grade 9., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of grade 6 and 9 students enrolled in VCH schools for the 2021/22 school year, who also resided within the VCH region. We modelled the associations between sociodemographic explanatory variables (individual-level and group-level) and fully vaccinated outcome using a cross-classified (non-nested) multilevel model., Results: Among the 17,939 students eligible, 74 % were fully vaccinated for HPV. Immunization coverage was associated with grade, geographic area of residence, school category, social and material deprivation. We demonstrated that grade modified the association between material deprivation and being fully vaccinated. Grade 9 students, including those residing in more materially deprived neighbourhoods, had substantially higher odds (OR 2.01 [95 % CI 1.08, 3.75]) of being fully vaccinated relative to grade 6 students in the least materially deprived neighbourhoods., Conclusions: Though publicly funded HPV vaccine is offered to all students in grade 6 and 9, in a space that maximizes programmatic access, sociodemographic factors associated with under-immunized populations were identified. This information can be leveraged for strategic targeting of resources to underimmunized schools or students to mitigate impacts. The repeat offering of HPV vaccine in an older grade (grade 9 in BC) is a key programmatic strategy to reach under-immunized populations and should be complemented by other creative approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The WHO SAGE vaccine hesitancy working group defined vaccine hesitancy as the delay or refusal of vaccination. Questions about individuals who become vaccinated while hesitant, or remain unvaccinated even though they are not hesitant, are unimaginable when starting from this behaviorally related definition of vaccine hesitancy. More critically, behaviorally related definitions limit the possibilities for vaccine hesitancy research to be translatable into clinical and public health practices that can increase vaccination., Lessons Learned: Emerging research on hesitant adopters provides several lessons for the conceptualization of vaccine hesitancy and how practitioners might increase vaccination. Conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy must account for some of the big lessons we have learned from hesitant adopters: (1) vaccine hesitancy and vaccination co-occur for many; (2) vaccine hesitancy may not always be characterized by a punctuated point-in-time or moment; and (3) following from the second lesson, vaccine hesitancy may not be temporally bound to the moments preceding a vaccination decision., Conclusions: We recommend conceptualizing vaccine-hesitant attitudes as distinctive from behaviors, and not temporally bound to moments preceding vaccination decisions. Sharpening the use of vaccine hesitancy and its temporal characteristics could benefit from engagement with the Life Course Paradigm. We recommend healthcare professionals provide a recommendation even when individuals express hesitancy. Finally, we recommend public health officials consider ways to improve the frequency and consistency of provider recommendations even among patients who are hesitant., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Individuals' vaccine attitudes and practices are not static, but instead are shaped and iteratively revised based on new information and experiences. Understanding shifts over the life course could inform novel approaches and indicate opportune points for communicating vaccine information, but little is known about individuals' vaccination biographies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries., Methods: To explore vaccination biographies in a setting marked by high proportions of vaccine hesitancy and recent large-scale vaccination discourses, we conducted and biographically analyzed n = 29 narrative in-depth interviews with caregivers of small children in the Philippines., Results: Our results outline how the perceived relevance of vaccination and an individual's own attitudes and practices repeatedly changed over the course of their life. While respondents narrated vague memories of early vaccine encounters in their families, at schools, or during vaccination campaigns, vaccine relevance accelerated drastically during respondents' or their partner's first perinatal period. Over the following life phase as caregivers, respondents described iterative shifts in their vaccine stance (based on their own experiences, broader discourses, or changing contexts) until their youngest child 'graduated' from immunization. Respondents' later adulthood and old age were commonly marked by little engagement with immunization (except for the COVID-19 vaccines), until the birth of grandchildren sparked renewed motivation to guide younger generations (whether for or against vaccination)., Conclusions: The relevance of vaccination and associated attitudes or practices repeatedly change over the life course. Vaccine promotion efforts could incorporate these biographical dynamics to align with respondents' informational needs, for example by increased engagement in first perinatal periods, eye-level communication at later phases to acknowledge caregivers' increased sense of expertise, and encouragement of vaccine confident grandparents to engage in younger generations' vaccination decisions. Future research should explore transgenerational vaccine trajectories and the potential of biographically targeted promotion efforts., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors report financial support was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Wachinger reports financial support was provided by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in the form of a doctoral scholarship. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)