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) 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 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 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 rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV) has been used in response to Ebola disease outbreaks caused by Ebola virus (EBOV). Understanding Ebola knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) and the long-term immune response following rVSV-ZEBOV are critical to inform recommendations on future use., Methods: We administered surveys and collected blood samples from healthcare workers (HCWs) from seven Ugandan healthcare facilities. Questionnaires collected information on demographic characteristics and KAP related to Ebola and vaccination. IgG ELISA, virus neutralization, and interferon gamma ELISpot measured immunological responses against EBOV glycoprotein (GP)., Results: Overall, 37 % (210/565) of HCWs reported receiving any Ebola vaccination. Knowledge that rVSV-ZEBOV only protects against EBOV was low among vaccinated (32 %; 62/192) and unvaccinated (7 %; 14/200) HCWs. Most vaccinated (91 %; 192/210) and unvaccinated (92 %; 326/355) HCWs wanted to receive a booster or initial dose of rVSV-ZEBOV, respectively. Median time from rVSV-ZEBOV vaccination to sample collection was 37.7 months (IQR: 30.5, 38.3). IgG antibodies against EBOV GP were detected in 95 % (61/64) of HCWs with vaccination cards and in 84 % (162/194) of HCWs who reported receiving a vaccination. Geometric mean titer among seropositive vaccinees was 0.066 IU/mL (95 % CI: 0.058-0.076)., Conclusion: As Uganda has experienced outbreaks of Sudan virus and Bundibugyo virus, for which rVSV-ZEBOV does not protect against, our findings underscore the importance of continued education and risk communication to HCWs on Ebola and other viral hemorrhagic fevers. IgG antibodies against EBOV GP were detected in most vaccinated HCWs in Uganda 2─4 years after vaccination; however, the duration and correlates of protection warrant further investigation., 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: One of the goals of the President's Cancer Panel was to maximize access to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination through expansion of alternative settings for receiving the vaccine, such as in public health settings, schools, and pharmacies., Methods: In a cross-sectional analysis, we utilized the National Immunization Survey-Teen data from 2014 to 2020 (n = 74,645) to describe trends and factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in private, public, and alternative settings. We calculated annual percent change (APC) between 2014 and 2020, estimating rate of HPV vaccine uptake across settings. Using multinomial logistic regression, we estimated the odds of receipt of HPV vaccine in public health settings and other alternative settings compared to private healthcare settings, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates., Results: We found a 5 % annual increase in the use of private facilities between 2014-2018 (APC = 5.3; 95 % CI 3.4, 7.1), and almost 7 % between 2018-2020 (APC = 6.7; 95 % CI 1.4, 12.3). Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses found that odds of receiving vaccinations at a public facility vs. a private facility increased almost two times for adolescents living below poverty (aOR = 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.60, 2.08) compared to above poverty. Additionally, adolescents without physician recommendations had lower odds of receiving vaccines at public versus private facilities (aOR = 1.75, 95 % CI: 1.44, 2.12). Finally, odds of receiving HPV vaccines at public facilities vs. private facilities decreased by 33 % for White adolescents (aOR = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.57, 0.78) versus Black adolescents., Conclusions: Sociodemographic factors such as race, and socioeconomic factors such as poverty level, and receipt of physician HPV recommendations are associated with receiving the vaccine at private settings vs. public health facilities and alternative settings. This information is important in strengthening alternative settings for HPV vaccine uptake to increase access to the vaccine among disadvantaged individuals., 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.)

Introduction: Communities of color had higher rates of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection and lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic. Parental concern about the safety and necessity of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines contribute to low childhood vaccination. Enlisting parents and caregivers as trusted messengers is an evidence-based approach to mitigate this challenge. VaxUpPhillyFamilies was formed to engage parents and caregivers as vaccine ambassadors to increase vaccination rates in children of color. This study aimed to understand the key benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the VaxUpPhillyFamilies program., Methods: Three online debriefing sessions with ambassadors were conducted between September 7 and October 24, 2022, to share best practices, address challenges, receive emerging vaccine information, and provide support. Thematic analysis was utilized to develop broad themes and subthemes., Results: Four themes with corresponding subthemes were identified: 1) Motivations to Become an Ambassador: a) improving the health of the community and b) personal satisfaction; 2) Defining Success: a) community interactions and b) influencing opinions; 3) Best Approaches: a) being mentally prepared with facts, b) addressing community health needs beyond COVID-19, c) demonstrating empathy, d) "meeting them where they're at" by motivational interviewing, and e) building trust and connection; 4) Challenges: a) changes in vaccine guidelines, b) vaccine misinformation, c) varied perceptions of severity of COVID-19 illness and benefits of the vaccine, d) breakdown of communication from trusted sources, and e) structural barriers to engagement., Conclusion: Parents and caregivers were a resource for delivering evidence-based messaging about COVID-19 and other health challenges. To effectively equip parents and caregivers as public health ambassadors, it is critical to offer training in engagement strategies, to identify and combat misinformation, and to provide support in navigating challenges. VaxUpPhillyFamilies program is a model for future public health campaigns., 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.)

Importance: Routine vaccinations are key to prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. However, there have been documented declines in routine childhood vaccinations in the U.S. and worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic., Objective: Assess how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted routine childhood vaccinations by evaluating vaccination coverage for routine childhood vaccinations for children born in 2016-2021., Methods: Data on routine childhood vaccinations reported to CDC by nine U.S. jurisdictions via the immunization information systems (IISs) by December 31, 2022, were available for analyses. Population size for each age group was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics' Bridging Population Estimates., Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccination coverage for routine childhood vaccinations at age three months, five months, seven months, one year, and two years was calculated by vaccine type and overall, for 4:3:1:3:3:1:4 series (≥4 doses DTaP, ≥3 doses Polio, ≥1 dose MMR, ≥3 doses Hib, ≥3 doses Hepatitis B, ≥1 dose Varicella, and ≥ 4 doses pneumococcal conjugate), for each birth cohort year and by jurisdiction., Results: Overall, there was a 10.4 percentage point decrease in the 4:3:1:3:3:1:4 series in those children born in 2020 compared to those children born in 2016. As of December 31, 2022, 71.0% and 71.3% of children born in 2016 and 2017, respectively, were up to date on their routine childhood vaccinations by two years of age compared to 69.1%, 64.7% and 60.6% for children born in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: The decline in vaccination coverage for routine childhood vaccines is concerning. In order to protect population health, strategic efforts are needed by health care providers, schools, parents, as well as state, local, and federal governments to work together to address these declines in vaccination coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases by maintaining high levels of population immunity., 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: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated to Covid-19 (MIS-C) is one of the most severe outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 in children. Covid-19 vaccines were successfully implemented in Chile for the pediatric population since 2021, using both mRNA and inactivated platforms. Effectiveness against MIS-C has been reported for mRNA vaccines. The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiologic trend of MIS-C in Chile during Covid-19 pandemic, both before and after the availability of vaccination for children., Materials and Methods: Analytic study of MIS-C cases from April 2020 to December 2022. Epidemiological data, SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccination uptake information were obtained from the Epidemiology Department-Ministry of Health, Institute of Public Health and the National Immunization Program, respectively., Results: 496 cases of MIS-C were reported, 58 % males. Median age was 5 years and most frequent age-cohorts were 6-11 and 0-2 years old with a 33 % each. After the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine, most cases occurred in children aged 0-2 years. Incidence rates were 3.8, 5.4 and 1.7 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively. 97 % of cases (481) occurred in unvaccinated subjects. On those previously vaccinated (15), all but one case occurred in children receiving the inactivated vaccine. No association among circulating variants and incidence was observed. Incidence rate reduction (IRR) comparison between 2020 and 2021-2022 periods was 0.72 (CI 95 % 0.65-0.81, p < 0.05) overall; 0.86 for 0-2 years (CI 95 %:0.71-1; p = 0.12); 0.88 for 3-5 years (CI 95 %:0.69-1.11; p = 0.28); 0.61 for 6-11 years (CI 95 %: 0.50-0.75; p < 0.05); and 0.64 for 12-17 years (CI 95 %:0.47-0.89; p < 0.05), consistent with vaccination uptake during the studied period: 63 % for 3-5 years, 91 % for 6-11 years, and 99 % for 12-17 years., Conclusions: A decline of MIS-C incidence and a shift to younger, unvaccinated population overtime was observed. IRR decreased in age-cohorts which achieved high vaccination rates., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Rodolfo Villena reports a relationship with Sinovac Biotech Ltd that includes: funding grants. Rodolfo Villena reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Rodolfo Villena reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: funding grants. Giannina Izquierdo reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Juan Pablo Torres reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: speaking and lecture fees 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.)

Objective: This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both routine and non-routine vaccinations in infants during their initial 18 months of life, concurrently exploring the complex influence of sociodemographic factors., Methods: A cohort study was conducted, involving 2007 children in two distinct periods: pre-pandemic (January-June 2018) and pandemic (March 2020-May 2021). Participants were classified into two cohorts: 962 children in the 2018 group and 1045 children in the 2020-21 group. Utilizing unconditional logistic regression, the association between vaccination (complete or non-routine) and socioeconomic factors was examined, with adjustments for potential confounding variables such as age, breastfeeding, gestational age, and twins., Results: The study's analysis reveals that in the post-pandemic period, mothers were three times more likely to opt for non-routine vaccines (95% CI 2.25-4.23). However, no significant alterations were observed in routine vaccination rates. Protective factors for complete vaccination included having an employed mother, higher education, and a medium-to-high income. Conversely, a higher income was associated with a reduced likelihood of complete vaccination (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.59)., Conclusion: Contrary to initial expectations, this study concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic did not have a substantial impact on childhood complete vaccination rates. Nevertheless, a noticeable increase in the choice of non-routine vaccination was observed. Sociodemographic factors, such as maternal education, income, and employment status, emerged as key influencers, particularly in the context of deciding on non-routine vaccinations., 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. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates among females are lower than the World Health Organization target and vaccination rates specifically among adult females are even much lower., Methods: We systematically evaluated individual socioeconomic and health-related characteristics associated with HPV vaccination initiation and vaccination series completion among adult females (PROSPERO: CRD42023445721). We performed a literature search on December 14, 2022, and supplemented the search on August 1, 2023. We pooled appropriate multivariable-adjusted results using an inverse variance random-effects model and expressed the results as odds ratios with associated 95 % confidence intervals. A point pooled significantly increased/decreased odds of 30-69 % was regarded to be strongly associated, and ≥ 70 % was very strongly associated., Results: We included 63 cross-sectional studies. There were strongly increased odds of vaccination initiation among White women compared with Black or Asian women, and those with higher education, health insurance, a history of sexually transmitted infection (STI), receipt of influenza vaccination in the preceding year, not married/cohabiting, not smoking, using contraception, and having visited a healthcare provider in the preceding year. We observed very strongly increased odds of vaccination initiation among those younger and having been born in the country of study. Similarly, there were strongly increased odds of completing the vaccination series for the same variables as initiating vaccination, except for higher education, prior STI, smoking and contraception use. Additional variables associated with strongly increased odds of vaccination series completion not seen in initiation were higher annual household income, being lesbian/bisexual, and having a primary care physician. We observed very strongly increased odds of vaccination series completion similar to vaccination initiation but including for White compared with Black women, higher education, and prior cervical cancer screening., Conclusions: These individual characteristics may be the key to identifying women at increased risk of not being vaccinated against HPV and could inform targeted messaging to drive HPV vaccination., 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. This study received no funding., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Childhood vaccine uptake in the United Kingdom (UK) is sub-optimal leading to outbreaks of preventable diseases. We aimed to explore UK parents' perspectives on why some children are unvaccinated or vaccinated late., Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods, co-production study involving a survey using a questionnaire followed by focus groups. We partnered with The Mosaic Community Trust (Mosaic) who are based in a more deprived, ethnically diverse, low vaccine uptake area of London. Targeted recruitment to complete the questionnaire (either on paper or online) was done through Mosaic, community networks and social media promotion. We collected demographic data alongside parents' views on routine childhood vaccination, their vaccine decisions, and experiences of accessing childhood vaccine appointments We report descriptive findings from the questionnaire and thematic analysis of free-text questionnaire answers and focus groups guided by the COM-B model of Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation., Results: Between June-October 2022, 518 parents were surveyed of whom 25% (n = 130), were from ethnic minorities (13%, n = 68-unknown ethnicity). In 2023 we held four focus groups with 22 parents (10 from ethnic minorities). Only 15% (n = 78) parents had delayed or refused a vaccine for their child. A quarter of parents felt they had not been given enough information nor an opportunity to ask questions before their children's vaccinations. Inconsistent reminders and difficulties booking or attending appointments impacted vaccine uptake with negative experiences influencing future vaccine decisions. Parents had mixed views on vaccinations being given in different locations and wanted trusted health professionals to vaccinate their children., Conclusion: To reverse declining vaccine uptake and prevent future outbreaks it needs to be easier for UK parents to speak to health professionals to answer their childhood vaccine questions, alongside simplified booking systems and easier access to routine childhood vaccine appointments., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Helen Skirrow reports financial support was provided by National Institute for Health and Care Research. Celine Lewis reports financial support was provided by National Institute for Health and Care Research. Sonia Saxena reports financial support was provided by National Institute for Health and Care Research. Kim Foley reports financial support was provided by National Institute for Health and Care Research. 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 Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)