Most downloaded biology preprints, since beginning of last month
in category health policy
361 results found. For more information, click each entry to expand.
4,030 downloads medRxiv health policy
This paper reports on the correlation of mitigation practices with staff and student COVID-19 case rates in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts during the 2020-2021 school year. We analyze data collected by the COVID-19 School Response Dashboard and focus on student density, ventilation upgrades, and masking. We find higher student COVID-19 rates in schools and districts with lower in-person density but no correlations in staff rates. Ventilation upgrades are correlated with lower rates in Florida but not in New York. We do not find any correlations with mask mandates. All rates are lower in the spring, after teacher vaccination is underway
1,981 downloads medRxiv health policy
Objectives: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Vaxzevira) builds on nearly two decades of research and development (R&D) into Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aims to approximate the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. Design: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly-accessible grant databases. We filed Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. Results: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between 01/2002 and 10/2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from funding acknowledgement statements. Government funders from overseas were mentioned 158 (27.4%), the U.K. government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%) times. Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions, amounts were available in the public realm for 121 (21.0%) mentions. Based on the FOIs, until 01/2020, the European Commision (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and CEPI (17.5%) were the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D. From 01/2020, the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care was the single largest funder (89.3%). The identified R&D funding was GBP104,226,076 reported in the FOIs, and GBP228,466,771 reconstructed from the literature search. Conclusions: Our study identified that public funding accounted for 97.1-99.0% of the funding towards the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We furthermore encountered a severe lack of transparency in research funding reporting mechanisms.
1,919 downloads medRxiv health policy
BackgroundVaccines are effective interventions that can reduce the high burden of diseases globally. However, public vaccine hesitancy is a pressing problem for public health authorities. With the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, little information is available on the public acceptability and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccines in Jordan. This study aimed to investigate the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines and its predictors in addition to the attitudes towards these vaccines among public in Jordan. MethodsAn online, cross-sectional, and self-administered questionnaire was instrumentalized to survey adult participants from Jordan on the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression analysis was used to find the predictors of COVID-19 vaccines acceptability. ResultsA total of 3,100 participants completed the survey. The public acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines was fairly low (37.4%) in Jordan. Males (OR=2.488, 95CI%=1.834-3.375, p<.001) and those who took the seasonal influenza vaccine (OR=2.036, 95CI%=1.306-3.174, p=.002) were more likely to accept Covid-19 vaccines. Similarly, participants who believed that vaccines are generally safe (OR=9.258, 95CI%=6.020-14.237, p<.001) and those who were willing to pay for vaccines (OR=19.223, 95CI%=13.665-27.042, p<.001), once available, were more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines. However, those above 35 years old (OR=0.376, 95CI%=0.233-0.607, p<.001) and employed participants (OR=0.542, 95CI%=0.405-0.725, p<.001) were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, participants who believed that there was a conspiracy behind COVID-19 (OR=0.502, 95CI%=0.356- 0.709, p<.001) and those who do not trust any source of information on COVID-19 vaccines (OR=0.271, 95CI%=0.183 - 0.400, p<.001), were less likely to have acceptance towards them. The most trusted sources of information on COVID-19 vaccines were healthcare providers. ConclusionSystematic interventions are required by public health authorities to reduce the levels of vaccines hesitancy and improve their acceptance. We believe these results and specifically the low rate of acceptability is alarming to Jordanian health authorities and should stir further studies on the root causes and the need of awareness campaigns. These interventions should take the form of reviving the trust in national health authorities and structured awareness campaigns that offer transparent information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and the technology that was utilized in their production.
1,590 downloads medRxiv health policy
Andrea Dennis, Malgorzata Wamil, Sandeep Kapur, Johann Alberts, Andrew D Badley, Gustav Anton Decker, Stacey A. Rizza, Rajarshi Banerjee, Amitava Banerjee, On behalf of the COVERSCAN study investigators
BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has disproportionately affected older individuals and those with underlying medical conditions. Research has focused on short-term outcomes in hospital, and single organ involvement. Consequently, impact of long COVID (persistent symptoms three months post-infection) across multiple organs in low-risk individuals is yet to be assessed. MethodsAn ongoing prospective, longitudinal, two-centre, observational study was performed in individuals symptomatic after recovery from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptoms and organ function (heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas, spleen) were assessed by standardised questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, Dyspnoea-12), blood investigations and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, defining single and multi-organ impairment by consensus definitions. FindingsBetween April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05). InterpretationIn a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities. FundingThis work was supported by the UKs National Consortium of Intelligent Medical Imaging through the Industry Strategy Challenge Fund, Innovate UK Grant 104688, and also through the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 719445.
1,110 downloads medRxiv health policy
Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 globally has prompted policymakers to evaluate the capacity of health care infrastructure in their communities. Many hard-hit localities have witnessed a large influx of severe cases that strained existing hospitals. As COVID-19 spreads in India, it is essential to evaluate the country's capacity to treat severe cases. Methods We combined data on public and private sector hospitals in India to produce state level estimates of hospital beds, ICU beds, and mechanical ventilators. Based on the number of public sector hospitals from the 2019 National Health Profile (NHP) of India and the relative proportions of public and private health care facilities from the National Sample Survey (NSS) 75th round (2017-2018), we estimated capacity in each Indian state and union territory (UT). We assumed that 5% of all hospital beds were ICU beds and that 50% of ICU beds were equipped with ventilators. Results We estimated that India has approximately 1.9 million hospital beds, 95,000 ICU beds and 48,000 ventilators. Nationally, resources are concentrated in the private sector (hospital beds: 1,185,242 private vs 713,986 public; ICU beds: 59,262 private vs 35,699 public; ventilators: 29,631 private vs. 17,850 public). Our findings suggest substantial variation in available resources across states and UTs. Conclusion Some projections shave suggested a potential need for approximately 270,000 ICU beds in an optimistic scenario, over 2.8 times the estimated number of total available ICU beds in India. Additional resources will likely be required to accommodate patients with severe COVID-19 infections in India.
808 downloads medRxiv health policy
By the end of February 2021, when 48% of the Israeli population was immune, the number of new positive COVID-19 cases significantly dropped across all ages. Understanding which parameters influenced this drop and how to minimize the number of hospitalizations and overall positive cases is urgently needed. In this study we conducted an observational analysis which included COVID-19 data with over 12,000,000 PCR tests from 250 cities in Israel. In addition, we performed a simulation of different vaccination campaigns to find the optimal policy. Our analysis revealed that cities with younger populations reached a decrease in new cases when a lower percentage of their residents were immunized, showing that median age is a crucial parameter effecting overall immunity, while other parameters appeared to be insignificant. This variance between cities is explained by recalculating the immunized population and multiplying each individual by a factor symbolizing the impact of their age on the spread on the virus. This factor is easily calculated from historical data of positive cases per age. The simulation proves that prioritizing different age groups or changing the rate of vaccinations drastically effects the overall hospitalizations and positive cases.
528 downloads medRxiv health policy
Governments around the world have been implementing several non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to fight Covid-19 spread and its associated mortality. We estimate the causal impact of mandatory face-mask wearing policy in public places on (total) mortality in Switzerland. We exploit the staggered introduction of the policy across Swiss cantons using a Difference-in-Difference and an event study approach. We find that the extension of compulsory mask wearing to public places has an heterogeneous impact on mortality, with small positive effects on male mortality entirely driven by older age-cohorts (90+). Finally, we show that adding contact tracing and stricter distancing to compulsory face-mask policy does not lead to better results in terms of mortality.
527 downloads medRxiv health policy
Background: All adults in the Unites States now have access to COVID-19 vaccines. During the vaccination process, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) fact sheets are provided. Objective: To analyze the ease of reading (i.e., readability) of the EUA-approved fact sheets for the vaccines currently available in the United States, the V-Safe adverse event survey script, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website on COVID-19 vaccines. Design: We analyzed the readability of Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen EUA fact sheets, as well as the V-Safe survey script and the vaccine-related information on the CDC website. Measurements: Readability factors include the following: average length of paragraphs, sentences, and words; font size and style; use of passive voice; the Gunning-Fog index; the Flesch Reading Ease index; and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index. Results: Only the V-Safe adverse event survey script met readability standards for adequate comprehension. The mean readability scores of the EUA fact sheets and the CDC website were as follows: Flesch Reading Ease score (mean 44.35); Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (mean 10.48); and Gunning-Fog index (mean 11.8). These scores indicate that a 10th-12th grade-level education is necessary to comprehend these documents. Conclusion: The average person in the United States would have difficulty understanding the information provided in the EUA fact sheets and CDC COVID-19 vaccine website; however, the V-Safe survey was written at an appropriate reading level. To ensure that the public fully understands information regarding COVID-19 vaccines, simplified information material should be developed.
433 downloads medRxiv health policy
Background: Four vaccines against the novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have currently been approved for use in the United Kingdom. As of 30 April 2021, over 34 million adults have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The UK Government is considering the introduction of vaccine passports for domestic use and to facilitate international travel for UK residents. Although vaccine incentivisation has been cited as a motivating factor for vaccine passports, it is currently unclear whether vaccine passports are likely to increase inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: We conducted a large-scale national survey in the UK of 17,611 adults between 9 and 27 April 2021. Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification is used to provide unbiased national-level estimates of the impact of the introduction of vaccine passports on inclination to accept COVID-19 vaccines among all respondents who have not yet had two vaccination doses. Multilevel regressions identify the differential impact of the likely impact of vaccine passports on uptake intent between socio-demographic groups. Gibbs sampling was used for Bayesian model inference, with 95% highest posterior density intervals used to capture uncertainty in all parameter estimates. Findings: We find that the introduction of vaccine passports will likely lower inclination to accept a COVID-19 vaccine once baseline vaccination intent has been adjusted for. Notably, this decrease is larger if passports were required for domestic use rather than for facilitating international travel. The impact of passports while controlling for baseline vaccination intent differentially impacts individuals by socio-demographic status, with being male (OR 0.87, 0.76 to 0.99) and having degree qualifications (OR 0.84, 0.72 to 0.94) associated with a decreased inclination to vaccinate if passports were required for domestic use, while Christians (OR 1.23, 1.08 to 1.41) have an increased inclination over atheists or agnostics. There is a strong association between change in vaccination inclination if passports were introduced and baseline vaccination intent: stated change in vaccination inclination is thus lower among Black or Black British respondents (compared to Whites), younger age groups, and non-English speakers. We find notable sub-national trends, for example, that passports could increase inclination among students and Jewish respondents in London compared to those in full-time education or atheists or agnostics, respectively. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative assessment of the potential impact of the introduction of vaccine passports on COVID-19 vaccine intention. Our findings should be interpreted in light of sub-national trends in current uptake rates across the UK, as our results suggest that vaccine passports may induce a lower vaccination inclination in socio-demographic groups that cluster geographically in large urban areas. Caution should therefore be exercised in introducing passports as they may result in less positive health-seeking behaviours for the COVID-19 vaccine (as well as other existing or future vaccinations) and may contribute to concentrated areas of low vaccinate uptake, which is an epidemic risk. We call for further evidence on the impact of vaccine certification on confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and in routine immunisations in wider global settings and, in particular, in countries with low overall trust in vaccinations or in authorities that administer or recommend vaccines.
365 downloads medRxiv health policy
Luca Coscieme, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Lars F Mortensen, Kate Pickett, Ida Kubiszewski, Hunter Lovins, Jacqueline McGlade, Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir, Debra Roberts, Robert Costanza, Roberto De Vogli, Richard Wilkinson
Some countries have been more successful than others at dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. When we explore the different policy approaches adopted as well as the underlying socio-economic factors, we note an interesting set of correlations: countries led by women leaders have fared significantly better than those led by men on a wide range of dimensions concerning the global health crisis. In this paper, we analyze available data for 35 countries, focusing on the following variables: number of deaths per capita due to COVID-19, number of days with reported deaths, peaks in daily deaths, deaths occurred on the first day of lockdown, and excess mortality. Results show that countries governed by female leaders experienced much fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita and were more effective and rapid at flattening the epidemic's curve, with lower peaks in daily deaths. We argue that there are both contingent and structural reasons that may explain these stark differences. First of all, most women-led governments were more prompt at introducing restrictive measures in the initial phase of the epidemic, prioritizing public health over economic concerns, and more successful at eliciting collaboration from the population. Secondly, most countries led by women are also those with a stronger focus on social equality, human needs and generosity. These societies are more receptive to political agendas that place social and environmental wellbeing at the core of national policymaking.
343 downloads medRxiv health policy
The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because they do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.
334 downloads medRxiv health policy
Objective: To compare the inference regarding the effectiveness of the various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for COVID-19 obtained from different SIR models. Study design and setting: We explored two models developed by Imperial College that considered only NPIs without accounting for mobility (model 1) or only mobility (model 2), and a model accounting for the combination of mobility and NPIs (model 3). Imperial College applied models 1 and 2 to 11 European countries and to the USA, respectively. We applied these models to 14 European countries (original 11 plus another 3), over two different time horizons. Results: While model 1 found that lockdown was the most effective measure in the original 11 countries, model 2 showed that lockdown had little or no benefit as it was typically introduced at a point when the time-varying reproductive number was already very low. Model 3 found that the simple banning of public events was beneficial, while lockdown had no consistent impact. Based on Bayesian metrics, model 2 was better supported by the data than either model 1 or model 3 for both time horizons. Conclusions: Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.
311 downloads medRxiv health policy
Context: The implementation of case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) for controlling COVID-19 (caused by SARS-Cov-2 virus) has proven challenging due to varying levels of public acceptance and initially constrained resources, especially enough trained staff. Evaluating the impacts of CICT will aid efforts to improve such programs. Objectives: Estimate the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted by CICT and identify CICT processes that could improve overall effectiveness. Design: We used data on proportion of cases interviewed, contacts notified or monitored, and days from testing to contact notification from 14 jurisdictions to model the impact of CICT on cumulative cases counts and hospitalizations over a 60-day period. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s COVIDTracer tool, we estimated a range of impacts by assuming either contacts would quarantine only if monitored or would do so upon notification of potential exposure. We also varied the observed program metrics to assess their relative influence. Results: Performance by jurisdictions varied widely. Jurisdictions isolated between 12 and 86% of cases (including contacts which became cases) within 6 to 10 days after exposure-and-infection. We estimated that CICT-related reductions in transmission ranged from 0.4% to 32%. For every 100 cases prevented by nonpharmaceutical interventions, CICT averted between 4 and 97 additional cases. Reducing time to case isolation by one day increased averted case estimates by up to 15 percentage points. Increasing the proportion of cases interviewed or contacts notified by 20 percentage points each resulted in at most 3 or 6 percentage point improvements in averted cases. Conclusions: We estimated that case investigation and contact tracing reduced the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations among all jurisdictions studied. Reducing time to isolation produced the greatest improvements in impact of CICT.
274 downloads medRxiv health policy
As COVID-19 spread in 2020, most countries shut down schools in the hopes of slowing the pandemic. Yet, studies have not reached a consensus about the effectiveness of these policies partly because they lack rigorous causal inference. Our study aims to estimate the causal effects of school closures on the number of confirmed cases. To do so, we apply matching methods to municipal-level data in Japan. We do not find that school closures caused a reduction in the spread of the coronavirus. Our results suggest that policies on school closures should be reexamined given the potential negative consequences for children and parents.
273 downloads medRxiv health policy
In order to control the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, it will be important to develop a communication strategy to counteract "vaccine hesitancy". This paper reports the results of a survey experiment testing the impacts of several types of message content: the safety and efficacy of the vaccine itself, the likelihood that others will take the vaccine, and the possible role of politics in promoting the vaccine. In an original survey of 1123 American M-Turk respondents, we provided six different information conditions suggesting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the lack of safety/efficacy of the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would take the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would not take the vaccine, the suggestion that the vaccine is being promoted to gain greater control over individual freedom, and the suggestion that it is being rushed for political motivations. We compared the responses for those in the treatment groups with a control group who received no additional information. In comparison to the control group, those who received information about the safety/efficacy of the vaccine were more likely to report that they would take the vaccine, those who received information that others were reluctant to take the vaccine were more likely to report that they themselves would not take it, that other Americans would not take it, and that it was not important to get the vaccine, and those who received information about political influences on vaccine development expressed hesitancy to take it. Communication of effective messages about the vaccine will be essential for public health agencies that seek to promote vaccine take-up.
260 downloads medRxiv health policy
As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out across the world, there are growing concerns about the role that trust, belief in conspiracy theories and spread of misinformation through social media impact vaccine hesitancy. We use a nationally representative survey of 1,476 adults in the UK between December 12 to 18, 2020 and five focus groups conducted in the same period. Trust is a core predictor, with distrust in vaccines in general and mistrust in government raising vaccine hesitancy. Trust in health institutions and experts and perceived personal threat are vital, with focus groups revealing that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is driven by a misunderstanding of herd immunity as providing protection, fear of rapid vaccine development and side effects, belief the virus is man-made and related to population control. Particularly those who obtain information from relatively unregulated social media sources such as YouTube that have recommendations tailored by watch history are less likely to be willing to become vaccinated. Those who hold general conspiratorial beliefs are less willing to be vaccinated. Since an increasing number of individuals use social media for gathering health information, interventions require action from governments, health officials and social media companies. More attention needs to help people understand their own risks, unpack complex concepts and fill knowledge voids.
253 downloads medRxiv health policy
Following the widespread vaccination program for COVID-19 carried out in Israel, a survey was conducted to preliminarily assess behavior changes in the vaccinated population, prior to the expected upcoming policy change as to mask wearing and social distancing regulation in Israel. 200 people answered at least one question pertaining to preventive behaviour. Among the respondents, 21.1% reported a decrease in mask wearing compared to 47.3% who reported a decrease in social distancing. There was no difference in these measures between the sexes. However, people under the age of 50 were more likely to decrease mask wearing (28.1%) and decrease social distancing (56.1%), as compared with people over the age of 50 (17.2% and 41.8%, respectively). Among health care workers, there was a minimal decrease in mask wearing (1/23 people) compared to a more widespread decrease in social distancing (10/23). These data suggest that preventive attitudes change following COVID-19 vaccination, with less adherence to social distancing as compared to mask wearing, and should be taken into account when planning public policy in the future.
250 downloads medRxiv health policy
Noah A Haber, Emma Clarke-Deelder, Avi Feller, Emily R. Smith, Joshua A Salomon, Benjamin MacCormack-Gelles, Elizabeth M Stone, Clara Bolster-Foucault, Jamie R Daw, Laura A. Hatfield, Carrie E Fry, Christopher B Boyer, Eli Ben-Michael, Caroline M Joyce, Beth S Linas, Ian Schmid, Eric H Au, Sarah E Wieten, Brooke A. Jarrett, Cathrine Axfors, Van Thu Nguyen, Beth Ann Griffin, Alyssa Bilinski, Elizabeth A Stuart
Introduction: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. This study systematically reviewed the strength of evidence in the published COVID-19 policy impact evaluation literature. Methods: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and release review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation, assessing what impact evaluation method was used, graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. Results: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. Discussion: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for useful inference. This was largely driven by the circumstances under which policies were passed making it difficult to attribute changes in COVID-19 outcomes to particular policies. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.
239 downloads medRxiv health policy
The government of Kenya has launched a phased rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. A major barrier is vaccine hesitancy; the refusal or delay of accepting vaccination. This study evaluated the level and determinants of vaccine hesitancy in Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional study administered through a phone-based survey in February 2021 in four counties of Kenya. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify individual perceived risks and influences, context-specific factors, and vaccine-specific issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Kenya was high: 60.1%. Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy included: older age, lower education level, perceived difficulty in adhering to government regulations on COVID-19 prevention, less adherence to wearing of face masks, not having ever been tested for COVID-19, no reported socio-economic loss as a result of COVID public-health restriction measures, and concerns regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness. There is a need for the prioritization of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine confidence as part of the vaccine roll-out plan. These messaging and/or interventions should be holistic to include the value of other public health measures, be focused and targeted to specific groups, raise awareness on the risks of COVID-19 and effectively communicate the benefits and risks of vaccines.
234 downloads medRxiv health policy
COVID-19 population vaccination programs are underway globally. In Australia, the federal government has entered into three agreements for the supply of vaccines, with roll-out beginning for the highest priority groups in February 2021. Expansion of the vaccination program throughout February and March failed to meet government targets and this has been attributed to international supply issues. However, Australia has local capacity to manufacture one million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine weekly and once fully operational this will greatly increase the national vaccination capacity. Under current plans, these vaccine doses will be distributed primarily through a network of general practices, to be joined in later phases by community pharmacies. It remains unclear whether these small distribution venues have the logistical capacity to administer vaccines at the rate they will become available. To inform this discussion, we applied stochastic queue network models to estimate the capacity of vaccination sites based on assumptions about appointment schedules, service times and available staff numbers. We specified distinct queueing models for two delivery modes: (i) mass vaccination hubs located in hospitals or sports arenas and (ii) smaller clinics situated in general practices or community pharmacies. Based on our assumed service times, the potential daily throughput for an eight hour clinic at a mass vaccination hub ranged from around 500 vaccinations for a relatively small hub to 1,400 vaccinations a day for a relatively large hub. For GP vaccination clinics, the estimated daily throughput ranged from about 100 vaccinations a day for a relatively small practice to almost 300 a day for a relatively large practice. Stress tests showed that for both delivery modes, sites with higher staff numbers were more robust to system pressures, such as increased arrivals or staff absences, and mass vaccination sites were more robust that GP clinics. Our analysis is accompanied by an interactive web-based queue simulation applet, which allows users to explore queue performance under their own assumptions regarding appointments, service times and staff availability. Different vaccine delivery modes offer distinct benefits and may be particularly appealing to specific population segments. A combination of expanded mass vaccination hubs and expanded GP vaccination is likely to achieve mass vaccination faster than either mode alone.
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!