Search

Background: COVID-19 impacted families globally, restricting movement, and changing daily routines and family dynamics. In order to explore and contrast children's and parents' experiences and perceptions of life during COVID-19, we used Pike's distinction of emic (an insider's view) and etic (an outsider's view) and adapted the concept to the family level to differentiate between children's and parents' own perspectives (emic) and their view of other family members (etic)., Methods: Our qualitative study is based on face-to-face in-depth individual interviews with parents (n = 13) and their children (n = 16) and included migrant families as a hitherto underrepresented group in COVID-19 research in Germany. Interviews were recorded, transcribed in NVivo and quality-checked. We employed thematic analysis to explore similarities and differences in perceptions and experiences of children and parents at the family level and across the entire data set., Results: We identified the following major themes in parents' and children's experiences: managing role and relationship changes within the nuclear family, coping with social expectations and demands, and re-evaluations of life's priorities. Parents' etic views on children showed strong overlap with children's emic view in terms of physical movement restrictions, experiencing good and tense family times, and internalizing rules. For issues such as experiencing stigma, divorce or language acquisition, parents' views were not reflected in children's accounts. Children's testing experience, by contrast, was more nuanced than parents' perceptions of it. Children's etic views of parents, a perspective rarely found in qualitative research with children, overlapped with mothers' experiences of role strain., Conclusions: The consideration of parents' and children's emic and etic perspectives provided deeper insights into family members' experiences, navigation, and views of COVID-19 measures. Applying the emic/etic distinction to the family context enriches the sociology of childhood studies and enables a more nuanced understanding of diverging experiences within families and should thus be further explored within and beyond epidemics in order to guide future pandemic measures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We explored children's experiences of COVID-19 in terms of proximity and distance to significant others., Methods: Our qualitative study with children in Germany (6-15 years of age) explored their views and experiences of COVID-19 times via drawings and face-to-face semi-structured interviews ( n  = 13). We analysed data thematically and used the socio-ecological model as the theoretical underpinning. Case studies contextualized how children dealt with the COVID-19 precautions., Results: Salient motives in children's drawings were school scenarios showing distance-keeping and mask-wearing as an expression of interpersonal distance; in the home-schooling context, loneliness was highlighted. Drawings also illustrated the impact of COVID-19 in terms of separation, illness and death. A dynamic perception of proximity and distance emerged from drawings and interviews. COVID-19 barred children from spending "real" time together with close friends. Bridging physical distance virtually was easier for adolescents than for children., Conclusion: To bolster children's mental and social resilience in future epidemics, participants' plea for maintaining social and physical interactions with significant others and for keeping schools open should be heeded by policy-makers. Our study also highlights the benefits of conducting direct research with children and using non-verbal methods of data collection.

Background: Willingness to vaccinate against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is vital to successful vaccination campaigns, is wavering and suboptimal. In Germany, quantitative research highlighted concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as barriers to uptake, but qualitative insights regarding individuals' decisions about COVID-19 vaccines and how personal perceptions reflect or refute existing behavioral theories are lacking., Methods: To identify how individuals make COVID-19 vaccination decisions within real-life contexts, we conducted 33 semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals in Germany between March and April 2021 using maximum variation sampling, focusing on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines. Analysis, informed by a framework approach, began in the field via debriefings and was amplified upon the conclusion of data collection., Results: Four interconnected themes (deliberation, context, emotion, trust) shaped respondents' decisions about vaccination. Personal deliberation regarding benefits and risks of vaccines and perceptions of the broader social and political context sparked a spectrum of emotions that underpinned vaccination decisions. Trust in science and researchers emerged as a powerful protective factor facilitating the decision to get vaccinated even amidst a rapidly changing context and disconcerting information., Conclusions: Our findings add to ongoing debates about the breadth of vaccination decisions by highlighting how respondents are influenced by their perceptions of the political context and the emotional heft of their decisions. The role of cognitive evaluation, context, and emotions mirrors other decision-making frameworks, particularly the Risk as Feelings Theory. We extend on the elements of this theory by highlighting trust as a protective factor when making decisions particularly in highly uncertain contexts. Success of vaccination campaigns, more important than ever as new variants of COVID-19 emerge, is interwoven with an ability to bolster trust in science. Communicating public-health decisions and information about vaccines transparently without instilling fear offers promising chances to strengthen public trust in COVID-19 vaccines., Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00024505 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Vaccine scares undermine longstanding global health achievements. Remarkably little data has documented the lived experiences of policymakers working amidst vaccine scares and navigating their fallout. As a result, chances and challenges of large-scale national recuperation efforts are poorly understood., Objective: This study aims to explore the perspectives of policymakers involved in ongoing efforts to boost vaccine confidence in the Philippines following a 2017 Dengvaxia scare and the current COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Between August and November 2020, we conducted 19 semi-structured narrative interviews with purposively selected policymakers from governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations in the Philippines. Interviews were conducted online, transcribed, and analyzed following the tenets of reflexive thematic analysis., Results: We present results as an emerging model that draws on a chronology conveyed by policymakers in their own words. The Dengvaxia scare proved 'a decisive wedge' that splintered Filipino society and pitted governmental agencies against one another. The scare stoked distorted vaccination narratives, which were 'accelerated rapidly' via social media, and ignited feelings of uncertainty among policymakers of how to convey clear, accurate health messaging and how to prevent drops in care-seeking more broadly., Conclusions: Efforts to regain trust placed exceptional burdens on an already-strained health system. Respondent-driven recommendations on how to reinforce vaccine confidence and improve vaccination rollout include: developing clear vaccine messages, fostering healthcare providers' and policymakers' communication skills, and rebuilding trust within, toward and across governmental agencies. Further research on how to build enabling environments and rebuild trust in and across institutions remains paramount.

Objectives: The aim was to assess the performance of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS CoV-2 when implemented for large-scale universal screening of asymptomatic individuals., Methods: This study was a pragmatic implementation study for universal Ag-RDT-based screening at a tertiary care hospital in Germany where patients presenting for elective procedures and selected personnel without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 were screened with an Ag-RDT since October 2020. Test performance was calculated on an individual patient level., Results: In total, 49 542 RDTs were performed in 27 421 asymptomatic individuals over a duration of 5 and a half months. Out of 222 positive results, 196 underwent in-house confirmatory testing with PCR, out of which 170 were confirmed positive, indicating a positive predictive value of 86.7% (95% CI 81.2-91.1%). Negative Ag-RDTs were not routinely tested with PCR, but a total of 94 cases of false negative Ag-RDTs were detected due to PCR tests being performed within the following 5 days with a median cycle threshold value of 33 (IQR 29-35)., Discussion: This study provides evidence that Ag-RDTs can have a high diagnostic yield for transmission relevant infections with limited false positives when utilized at the point of care on asymptomatic patients and thus can be a suitable public health test for universal screening., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) and the global decline of vaccine coverage are a major global health threat, and novel approaches for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake are urgently needed. 'Nudging', defined as altering the environmental context in which a decision is made or a certain behaviour is enacted, has shown promising results in several health promotion strategies. We present a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding the value and impact of nudges to address VH., Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine if nudging can mitigate VH and improve vaccine uptake. Our search strategy used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms to identify articles related to nudging and vaccination in nine research databases. 15 177 titles were extracted and assessed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The final list of included articles was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework., Findings: Identified interventions are presented according to a framework for behaviour change, MINDSPACE. Articles (n=48) from 10 primarily high-income countries were included in the review. Nudging-based interventions identified include using reminders and recall, changing the way information is framed and delivered to an intended audience, changing the messenger delivering information, invoking social norms and emotional affect (eg, through storytelling, dramatic narratives and graphical presentations), and offering incentives or changing defaults. The most promising evidence exists for nudges that offer incentives to parents and healthcare workers, that make information more salient or that use trusted messengers to deliver information. The effectiveness of nudging interventions and the direction of the effect varies substantially by context. Evidence for some approaches is mixed, highlighting a need for further research, including how successful interventions can be adapted across settings., Conclusion: Nudging-based interventions show potential to increase vaccine confidence and uptake, but further evidence is needed for the development of clear recommendations. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic increases the urgency of undertaking nudging-focused research., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020185817., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Several studies have highlighted that vaccine hesitancy (VH) is among the most important threats to global health, especially in low- and middle-income countries, including the Philippines. However, there is a dearth of literature exploring family experiences of-or concerns related to-childhood vaccinations that gives voice to vaccine hesitant caregivers (VHCs) of small children. Here, we present insights from VHCs from the Philippines., Methods: This research draws on in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 44 VHCs who had previously delayed or refused vaccination for their children in rural and urban communities in Cavite Province, the Philippines. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted IDIs via an online platform of the respondents' choosing (ie, Facebook messenger call, Skype and Zoom). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated and analysed drawing from the tenets of constructivist grounded theory. We use the social ecological model to structure our results., Results: Among the reasons for delay or refusal of childhood vaccinations, a fear of side effects emerged as the most salient concern, exacerbated by previous negative experiences (including trauma) from a dengue vaccine controversy in 2017. Respondents cited the dengue vaccine controversy as they expressed reluctance (regarding any new vaccines) and suspicion (towards school-based vaccination, the distribution channel used for the dengue vaccine). Heads of households opposing vaccines, perceptions that vaccines are non-essential and influences from the social and traditional media or neighbours contributed to further refusal and delay. Upon probing, VHCs recounted health system concerns particularly with regards to healthcare workers who are sometimes unable to answer their questions and can be dismissive or disrespectful regarding caregivers' concerns., Conclusion: Understanding VH from the lens of VHCs highlights pathways for interventions to regain trust and bolster confidence towards vaccines. Our findings may serve as linchpins in the development of VH interventions aiming at changing behaviour on a population scale., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required tremendous shifts in data collection techniques. While an emerging body of research has described experiences conducting remote interviews, less attention has been paid to focus group discussions (FGDs). Herein, we present experiences conducting remote FGDs (n=9) with healthcare workers and caretakers of small children in the Philippines. We used 'Facebook Messenger Room' (FBMR), the preferred platform of participants. Despite some success, we generally encountered considerable challenges in terms of recruiting, retaining and moderating remote FGDs, particularly among caretakers of small children. Finding a quiet, private place proved unfeasible for many participants, who were juggling family demands in tight, locked down quarters. Connectivity issues and technological missteps compromised the flow of FGDs and minimised the ability to share and compare opinions. For the research team, remote FGDs resulted in a dramatic role shift for notetakers-from being passive observers to active tech supporters, chatbox referees and co-moderators (when audio disruptions occurred). Finally, we note that remote FGDs via FBMR are associated with ethical complexities, particularly as participants often chose to use their personal Facebook accounts, which can compromise anonymity. We developed and continuously refined strategies to mitigate challenges, but ultimately decided to forgo FGDs. We urge fellow researchers with more successful experiences to guide the field in terms of capturing high-quality data that respond to research questions, while also contending with privacy concerns, both in online spaces, as well as physical privacy despite lockdowns in tight quarters., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Since the onset of a dengue vaccine controversy in late 2017, vaccine confidence has plummeted in the Philippines, leading to measles and polio outbreaks in early 2019. This protocol outlines a human-centered design (HCD) approach to co-create and test an intervention that addresses vaccine hesitancy (VH) via narrative and empathy with and among families and healthcare workers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 'Salubong' is a Filipino term that means to welcome someone back into one's life, reinforcing notions of family ties and friendships. We apply this sentiment to vaccines. Following the phases of HCD, guided by a theoretical framework, and drawing from locally held understandings of faith and acceptance, we will conduct in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in rural and urban Filipino communities that witnessed dramatic increases in measles cases in recent years. During qualitative engagements with caretakers, providers, and policymakers, we will collect narratives about family and community perceptions of childhood vaccinations, public health systems and opportunities to restore faith. IDIs and FGDs will continuously inform the development of (and delivery mechanisms for) story-based interventions. Once developed, we will test our co-created interventions among 800 caretakers and administer a VH questionnaire prior to and immediately following the intervention encounter. We will use the feedback gained through the survey and Kano-style questionnaires to further refine the intervention. Considering the data collection challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we have developed workarounds to conduct data collection primarily online. We will use systematic online debriefings to facilitate comprehensive participation of the full research team., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (number 2019-44) and Ethical Commission of Heidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine (S-833/2019). Study findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)