Search

Health care provider recommendations are among the most important factors influencing parents' decisions to vaccinate their adolescents. However, delivery of high-quality health care provider recommendations for vaccination is not universal. There is wide variation in the strength, timeliness and consistency of the delivery of recommendations for all adolescent vaccines. The factors that influence health care providers' recommendations are multi-level and can be conceptualized in much the same way as vaccine acceptance among parents. Health care providers are influenced by their own attitudes and beliefs about a vaccine and also by the patient they are treating and by the community in which they practice as well as state and national level vaccine policy. We propose a multi-level framework for understanding the factors that influence health care providers' recommendations at the individual, interpersonal and community level to both develop and adapt interventions to improve providers' recommendations.

The global effort to develop a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is on track to produce one or more authorized vaccines. We examine how different definitions and thresholds of vaccine efficacy, coupled with different levels of implementation effectiveness and background epidemic severity, translate into outcomes including cumulative infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Using a mathematical simulation of vaccination, we find that factors related to implementation will contribute more to the success of vaccination programs than a vaccine's efficacy as determined in clinical trials. The benefits of a vaccine will decline substantially in the event of manufacturing or deployment delays, significant vaccine hesitancy, or greater epidemic severity. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for health officials to invest greater financial resources and attention to vaccine production and distribution programs, to redouble efforts to promote public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and to encourage continued adherence to other mitigation approaches, even after a vaccine becomes available.

The global effort to develop a vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already produced 2 candidates, each requiring 2 doses, with reported efficacies exceeding 90% The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Emergency Use Authorization for both vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) Their reported efficacies greatly exceed the 50% threshold the FDA cited in a June 2020 guidance document Additional vaccine candidates at earlier stages of development hold the promise of single dosing, simpler storage requirements, and more rapid immunity after vaccination Here, a study that aims to quantify the speed-versus-efficacy tradeoff using a previously published model of a COVID-19 vaccination program is offered

In 2020, 26 million refugees resettled in a new country-fleeing their homes due to conflict and persecution. Due to low immunization coverage and underlying health conditions, refugees commonly face an increased risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases. We collected and analyzed existing routine immunization policies for refugees across 20 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and 20 high-income countries (HICs), each with the highest number of refugees per 1000 residents. Primary and secondary data sources were used to collect policy evidence. Across 20 LMICs, 13 countries specified standing nationwide routine immunization policies for refugees, while 14 out of the 20 HICs included refugees in their national routine immunization programs. LMICs and HICs should include refugees in their national routine immunization policies and provide accessible and affordable immunizations. Such efforts would reduce vaccine-preventable diseases and protect the health of refugee populations-especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recent guidelines and recommen dations from government prevention advisory groups endorsing shared clinical decision-making reflect an emerging trend among public health bodies.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, Facebook introduced Ad Archive as a platform to improve transparency in advertisements related to politics and “issues of national importance.” Vaccine-related Facebook advertising is publicly available for the first time. After measles outbreaks in the US brought renewed attention to the possible role of Facebook advertising in the spread of vaccine-related misinformation, Facebook announced steps to limit vaccine-related misinformation. This study serves as a baseline of advertising before new policies went into effect. METHODS: Using the keyword ‘vaccine’, we searched Ad Archive on December 13, 2018 and again on February 22, 2019. We exported data for 505 advertisements. A team of annotators sorted advertisements by content: pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, not relevant. We also conducted a thematic analysis of major advertising themes. We ran Mann-Whitney U tests to compare ad performance metrics. RESULTS: 309 advertisements were included in analysis with 163 (53%) pro-vaccine advertisements and 145 (47%) anti-vaccine advertisements. Despite a similar number of advertisements, the median number of ads per buyer was significantly higher for anti-vaccine ads. First time buyers are less likely to complete disclosure information and risk ad removal. Thematically, anti-vaccine advertising messages are relatively uniform and emphasize vaccine harms (55%). In contrast, pro-vaccine advertisements come from a diverse set of buyers (83 unique) with varied goals including promoting vaccination (49%), vaccine related philanthropy (15%), and vaccine related policy (14%). CONCLUSIONS: A small set of anti-vaccine advertisement buyers have leveraged Facebook advertisements to reach targeted audiences. By deeming all vaccine-related content an issue of “national importance,” Facebook has further the politicized vaccines. The implementation of a blanket disclosure policy also limits which ads can successfully run on Facebook. Under current policies, improving transparency and limiting misinformation are not separate goals. Public health communication efforts should consider the impact on Facebook users’ vaccine attitudes and behaviors.

This article presents a decision framework and companion tool linked to a standard, dynamic state-transition model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus to help residential college administrators make decisions about vaccination programs and policies, infection surveillance with varying frequencies of testing and target populations, and use of nonpharmaceutical interventions (for example, distancing and masking), all considered with the goal of returning to pre–COVID-19 operations for the fall 2021 semester., Visual Abstract. Assessing COVID-19 Prevention Strategies to Allow Colleges to Open in Fall. This article presents a decision framework and companion tool linked to a standard, dynamic state-transition model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus to help residential college administrators make decisions about vaccination programs and policies, infection surveillance with varying frequencies of testing and target populations, and use of nonpharmaceutical interventions (for example, distancing and masking), all considered with the goal of returning to pre–COVID-19 operations for the fall 2021 semester. Visual Abstract. Assessing COVID-19 Prevention Strategies to Allow Colleges to Open in Fall. This article presents a decision framework and companion tool linked to a standard, dynamic state-transition model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus to help residential college administrators make decisions about vaccination programs and policies, infection surveillance with varying frequencies of testing and target populations, and use of nonpharmaceutical interventions (for example, distancing and masking), all considered with the goal of returning to pre–COVID-19 operations for the fall 2021 semester., Background: Effective vaccines, improved testing technologies, and decreases in COVID-19 incidence prompt an examination of the choices available to residential college administrators seeking to safely resume in-person campus activities in fall 2021. Objective: To help college administrators design and evaluate customized COVID-19 safety plans. Design: Decision analysis using a compartmental epidemic model to optimize vaccination, testing, and other nonpharmaceutical interventions depending on decision makers' preferences, choices, and assumptions about epidemic severity and vaccine effectiveness against infection, transmission, and disease progression. Setting: U.S. residential colleges. Participants: Hypothetical cohort of 5000 persons (students, faculty, and staff) living and working in close proximity on campus. Measurements: Cumulative infections over a 120-day semester. Results: Under base-case assumptions, if 90% coverage can be attained with a vaccine that is 85% protective against infection and 25% protective against asymptomatic transmission, the model finds that campus activities can be resumed while holding cumulative cases below 5% of the population without the need for routine, asymptomatic testing. With 50% population coverage using such a vaccine, a similar cap on cumulative cases would require either daily asymptomatic testing of unvaccinated persons or a combination of less frequent testing and resumption of aggressive distancing and other nonpharmaceutical prevention policies. Colleges returning to pre–COVID-19 campus activities without either broad vaccination coverage or high-frequency testing put their campus population at risk for widespread viral transmission. Limitation: Uncertainty in data, particularly vaccine effectiveness (preventive and transmission); no distinguishing between students and employees; and assumes limited community intermixing. Conclusion: Vaccination coverage is the most powerful tool available to residential college administrators seeking to achieve a safe return to prepandemic operations this fall. Given the breadth of potential outcomes in the face of uncontrollable and uncertain factors, even colleges with high vaccination rates should be prepared to reinstitute or expand testing and distancing policies on short notice. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

BackgroundEffective vaccines, improved testing technologies, and declines in COVID-19 incidence prompt an examination of the choices available to college administrators to safely resume in-person campus activities in fall 2021.ObjectiveTo develop a decision support tool that assists college administrators in designing and evaluating customized COVID vaccination, screening, and prevention plans.DesignDecision analysis linked to a compartmental epidemic model, quantifying the interaction of policy instruments (e.g., vaccination promotion, asymptomatic testing, physical distancing, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions), institutional priorities (e.g., risk tolerance, desire to resume activities), and assumptions about vaccine performance and background epidemic severity.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 5000 individuals (students, faculty, and staff) living and working in the close environs of a residential college campus.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Cumulative infections over a 120-day semester.ResultsUnder Base Case assumptions, if 90% coverage with an 85%-effective vaccine can be attained, the model finds that campus activities can be fully resumed while holding cumulative cases below 5% of the population without the need for routine, asymptomatic testing. With 50% population coverage using such a vaccine, a similar “return to normalcy” would require daily asymptomatic testing of unvaccinated individuals. The effectiveness of vaccination in reducing susceptibility to infection is a critical uncertainty.Conclusions & RelevanceVaccination coverage is the most powerful tool available to college administrators to achieve a safe return to pre-pandemic operations this fall. Given the breadth of potential outcomes in the face of uncontrollable and uncertain factors, even colleges that achieve high vaccination coverage should be prepared to reinstitute testing and distancing policies on short notice.

The Vaccines for Children Program at 25 The success of the Vaccines for Children program has meant that vaccine costs are seldom a major obstacle to childhood-vaccination efforts. But the program’s...

We examine the potential for exploiting retailer location choice in targeting health interventions. Using geospatial data, we quantify proximity to vaccines created by a U.S. federal program distributing COVID-19 vaccines to commercial retail pharmacies. We assess the distributional impacts of a proposal to provide vaccines at Dollar General, a low-priced general merchandise retailer. Adding Dollar General to the federal program would substantially decrease the distance to vaccine sites for low-income, rural, and minority U.S. households, groups for which COVID-19 vaccine take-up has been disproportionately slow.

As countries transition from facing COVID-19 vaccine supply shortfalls to requiring novel strategies to facilitate vaccination, modern retail chains—often designed and located to target particular demographic groups—are a potential vaccine delivery vehicle. Using geospatial data, we quantify the proximity to vaccines created by a U.S. federal program that distributes vaccines to commercial retail pharmacies. We then quantify the impact of a proposal to provide vaccines at Dollar General, a low-priced general merchandise retailer. We show that adding Dollar General to the federal program would substantially decrease the distance to vaccine sites for low-income and minority U.S. households.

Background: The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation.Methods: A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites and preprint servers (e.g. EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g. frequencies) and qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods.Discussion: Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.Systematic Review registrations: Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).

Background The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. Methods A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Gray literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites, and preprint servers (e.g., EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. Discussion Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Systematic review registrations Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).

ObjectivesAs COVID-19 vaccinations accelerate in many countries, narratives skeptical of vaccination have also spread through social media. Open online forums like Reddit provide an opportunity to quantitatively examine COVID-19 vaccine perceptions over time. We examine COVID-19 misinformation on Reddit following vaccine scientific announcements.MethodsWe collected all posts on Reddit from January 1 2020 - December 14 2020 (n=266,840) that contained both COVID-19 and vaccine-related keywords. We used topic modeling to understand changes in word prevalence within topics after the release of vaccine trial data. Social network analysis was also conducted to determine the relationship between Reddit communities (subreddits) that shared COVID-19 vaccine posts, and the movement of posts between subreddits.ResultsThere was an association between a Pfizer press release reporting 90% efficacy and increased discussion on vaccine misinformation. We observed an association between Johnson and Johnson temporarily halting its vaccine trials and reduced misinformation. We found that information skeptical of vaccination was first posted in a subreddit (r/Coronavirus) which favored accurate information and then reposted in subreddits associated with antivaccine beliefs and conspiracy theories (e.g. conspiracy, LockdownSkepticism).ConclusionsOur findings can inform the development of interventions where individuals determine the accuracy of vaccine information, and communications campaigns to improve COVID-19 vaccine perceptions. Such efforts can increase individual- and population-level awareness of accurate and scientifically sound information regarding vaccines and thereby improve attitudes about vaccines. Further research is needed to understand how social media can contribute to COVID-19 vaccination services.FundingStudy was funded by the Yale Institute for Global Health and the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. The funding bodies had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of the data in the study.

We use geospatial data to examine the unprecedented national program currently underway in the United States to distribute and administer vaccines against COVID-19. We quantify the impact of the proposed federal partnership with the company Dollar General to serve as vaccination sites and compare vaccine access with Dollar General to the current Federal Retail Pharmacy Partnership Program. Although dollar stores have been viewed with skepticism and controversy in the policy sector, we show that, relative to the locations of the current federal program, Dollar General stores are disproportionately likely to be located in Census tracts with high social vulnerability; using these stores as vaccination sites would greatly decrease the distance to vaccines for both low-income and minority households. We consider a hypothetical alternative partnership with Dollar Tree and show that adding these stores to the vaccination program would be similarly valuable, but impact different geographic areas than the Dollar General partnership. Adding Dollar General to the current pharmacy partners greatly surpasses the goal set by the Biden administration of having 90% of the population within 5 miles of a vaccine site. We discuss the potential benefits of leveraging these partnerships for other vaccinations, including against influenza.

The global effort to develop a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is on track to produce one or more authorized vaccines. We examine how different definitions and thresholds of vaccine efficacy, coupled with different levels of implementation effectiveness and background epidemic severity, translate into outcomes including cumulative infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Using a mathematical simulation of vaccination, we find that factors related to implementation will contribute more to the success of vaccination programs than a vaccine's efficacy as determined in clinical trials. The benefits of a vaccine will decline substantially in the event of manufacturing or deployment delays, significant vaccine hesitancy, or greater epidemic severity. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for health officials to invest greater financial resources and attention to vaccine production and distribution programs, to redouble efforts to promote public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and to encourage continued adherence to other mitigation approaches, even after a vaccine becomes available.

Evaluating and Deploying Covid-19 Vaccines New entities and investments have aided the pursuit of Covid-19 vaccines. Moving forward, relying on time-tested mechanisms for evaluating and regulating ...

This cohort study evaluates different approaches for estimating the population of individuals eligible for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act in the context of researching changes in cancer care after Medicaid expansion.

A century ago, nonpharmaceutical interventions such as school closings, restrictions on large gatherings, and isolation and quarantine were the centerpiece of the response to the Spanish Flu. Yet, even though its cause was unknown and the science of vaccine development was in its infancy, considerable enthusiasm also existed for using vaccines to prevent its spread. This desire far exceeded the scientific knowledge and technological capabilities of the time. Beginning in the early 1930s, however, advances in virology and influenza vaccine development reshaped the relative priority given to biomedical approaches in epidemic response over traditional public health activities. Today, the large-scale implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions akin to the response to the Spanish Flu would face enormous legal, ethical, and political challenges, but the enthusiasm for vaccines and other biomedical interventions that was emerging in 1918 has flourished. The Spanish Flu functioned as an inflection point in the history of epidemic responses, a critical moment in the long transition from approaches dominated by traditional public health activities to those in which biomedical interventions are viewed as the most potent and promising tools in the epidemic response arsenal.

Routine use of covid-19 vaccines could strain health budgets if pricing follows the pattern seen with influenza vaccines, say Reshma Ramachandran and colleagues

With vaccination efforts forced to compete for scarce resources at a time when national health budgets, global health resources, and the global donor community are facing considerable strains, advocates of vaccines have sought to better identify, measure, and articulate the value of vaccination. Critics of current analyses of the value of vaccination argue that a broader view is required, one that includes the additional economic benefits of vaccines or acknowledges the social and ethical aims advanced by vaccination programs. Much of this work has paid inadequate attention to the need to apply any expanded view of value consistently across medical interventions, to the close and complex integration of vaccination efforts with other health initiatives, and to the fact that subjectivity and judgments are present in quantitative and qualitative evidence alike. To fully realize the value of vaccination, far more attention, investment, and research are required to better understand the deliberations and decision-making processes by which any kind of evidence is translated into policy.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of national ethics commissions (NECs) have received considerable attention throughout the 40-year history of these groups in the United States and worldwide. However, the procedures or types of argument by which these bodies arrive at their decisions have received far less scrutiny. This paper explores how the diversity of ethical principles, concepts, or theories is featured in publications or decisions of these bodies, with particular emphasis on the need for NECs to be inclusive of pluralist positions that typically exist in contemporary democracies. The discussion is centered on the extent to which NECs may focus on providing focal frameworks, primarily framing the ethical issues at stake, or normative frameworks, additionally providing transparent justifications for any conclusions and recommendations that are made. The structure allows for assessments of the relative merits and drawbacks of different approaches in both theory and practice.

Comparative assessments of national bioethics commissions in the United States commonly look at the differences among these groups over their forty‐year history. A particular focus has been differences in the membership, mission, methods, and reports of the President's Council on Bioethics, which was active from 2001 until 2009, compared to those of its predecessors and the recent Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, active from 2009 until 2016. The differences are real, but disproportionate attention to them can obscure the substantial similarities in commissions’ structure and function throughout the history of expert bioethics advice to government. As the Trump administration considers what role, if any, a bioethics commission will play in its work, it would be well served to consider how choices regarding the design of such a group and the topics it examines can best facilitate the unique contributions it can make to the government and to the country.

Objectives. To examine state-level associations between voting patterns and adolescent coverage for at least 1 dose of human papillomavirus (HPV), tetanus-containing (Tdap), and meningococcal (MCV4) vaccination. Methods. We classified states as “blue” (Democratic affiliation) or “red” (Republican affiliation) based on the Presidential election results in 2012. We used multivariable models to adjust for potential confounding by sociodemographic and health care access characteristics and vaccination policies. For HPV, separate models were fitted for boys and girls. Results. Adolescent vaccination coverage was significantly higher in blue states than red states for each vaccine (P Conclusions. State-level voting patterns are independently and significantly associated with coverage for routinely recommended adolescent vaccines. These differences may reflect population-level differences in cultural norms and social values. Public Health Implications. Strategies to increase coverage at the individual, community, or structural level should consider local political settings that may facilitate or hinder effectiveness.

Vaccines have much relevance and promise for improving adult health in the United States, but to date, overall use and uptake remain far below desired levels. Many adults have not received recommended vaccinations and many healthcare providers do not strongly and actively encourage their use with patients. This has led some public health and medical experts to conclude that adult vaccines are severely undervalued by the U.S. public and healthcare providers and to call for campaigns and communication-based efforts to foster increased appreciation, and in turn, higher adult immunization rates. A narrative integrative review that draws upon the vaccine valuation and health communication literatures is used to develop a framework to guide campaign and communication-based efforts to improve public, provider, and policymakers' assessment of the value of adult vaccination. The review does this by: (1) distinguishing social psychological value from economic value; (2) identifying the implications of social psychological value considerations for adult vaccination-related communication campaigns; and (3) using five core health communication considerations to illustrate how social psychological notions of value can be integrated into campaigns or communication that are intended to improve adult vaccination value perceptions and assessments, and in turn, motivate greater support for and uptake of recommended adult vaccines.

In 1964, after a vaccination program against polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis began, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was created to advise the U.S. government on vaccination activities. The ACIP remains influential domestically and globally.

The role of panels of experts from outside government in the FDA's day-to-day work derives from the Drug Efficacy Study of the 1960s, which addressed many concerns that continue to shape discussions of pharmaceutical regulation.

* Abbreviation: HPV — : human papillomavirus Ten years after the approval of the first human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, vaccination rates in both males and females continue to fall short of the 80% coverage goals included in Healthy People 2020 .1 In 2015, 62.8% of girls and 49.8% of boys aged 13 to 17 had received at least 1 dose of HPV vaccine, and 41.9% of female adolescents and 28.1% of male adolescents had completed the 3-dose series, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 Although recent increases in HPV vaccination rates have been observed (perhaps a result of coordinated recent efforts by vaccination advocates to emphasize the role of these vaccines in cancer prevention) the identification of innovative approaches to promoting widespread use of HPV vaccines remains a priority.3 School vaccination requirements have long been viewed by proponents of vaccination as effective and essential tools in promoting and sustaining high vaccination rates.4 In this issue of Pediatrics , Moss and colleagues show that requirements for meningococcal and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccines result not only in substantial direct … Address correspondence to Jason L. Schwartz, PhD, MBE, Yale School of Public Health, P.O. Box 208034, New Haven, CT 06520. E-mail: jason.l.schwartz{at}yale.edu

Context Vaccination in the United States is a frequent source of controversy, with critics alleging failures by public health officials to adequately identify, monitor, and respond to risks associated with vaccines. In response to these charges, the case of RotaShield, a vaccine withdrawn in 1999 following confirmation of a serious adverse event associated with its use, is regularly invoked as evidence of the effectiveness of current vaccine safety activities.

Promising advances have been made in recent years for a unique class of immunotherapies that use vaccination to combat substance-use disorders. Although such vaccines are potentially useful for addictions, they raise a variety of ethical and social questions.

Past and current trends in vaccine refusal indicate that the medical establishment's habit of responding defensively to allegations that vaccines are unsafe may be ineffective. A superior strategy for advocates of vaccines may be to use the current media and information environment to refocus attention to vaccines' effectiveness and necessity.

The article discusses the author's views about optimism in relation to America's vaccine policy under the leadership of U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, and it mentions how Trump has spoken about a potential connection between childhood vaccinations and autism. The relationship between science and politics is examined, along with the attitudes of the employees at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the nation's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ethical issues are present at each stage in the vaccine product life cycle, the period extending from the earliest stages of research through the eventual design and implementation of global vaccination programs. Recent developments highlight fundamental principles of vaccine ethics and raise unique issues for ongoing vaccination activities worldwide. These include the 2009-10 H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccination campaign, renewed attention to the potential global eradication of polio, and the ongoing evaluation of vaccine risk controversies, most notably the alleged link between childhood vaccines and autism. These cases present ethical challenges for public health policy-makers, scientists, physicians, and other stakeholders in their efforts to improve the health of individuals, communities, and nations through vaccination.

Developments regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines will transform HPV vaccination in the United States while simultaneously raising several new policy and ethical concerns. Policymakers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public health community must now respond to the presence of competing vaccines that are similar but distinct, particularly with respect to genital wart prevention and the benefits of vaccinating males. This work arises in the shadow of the contentious introduction of the HPV vaccine Gardasil (Merck & Co, Inc, Whitehouse Station, NJ) in 2006, particularly the opposition to efforts in many states to require the vaccine for school attendance. I review the current status of HPV vaccine policy in the United States and examine issues of public health ethics and policy central to ongoing and future HPV vaccination programs.