Research from JAMA — Safety and Immunogenicity of 4 Intramuscular Double Doses and 4 Intradermal Low Doses vs Standard Hepatitis B Vaccine Regimen in Adults With HIV-1 — A Randomized Controlled Trial

Vaccine policy, decision processes and outcomes vary widely across Europe. The objective was to map these factors across 16 European countries by assessing (A) national vaccination strategy and implementation, (B) attributes of healthcare vaccination systems, and (C) outcomes of universal mass vaccination (UMV) as a measure of how successful the vaccination policy is. A. Eleven countries use standardised assessment frameworks to inform vaccine recommendations. Only Sweden horizon scans new technologies, uses standard assessments, systematic literature and health economic reviews, and publishes its decision rationale. Time from European marketing authorisation to UMV implementation varies despite these standard frameworks. Paediatric UMV recommendations (generally government-funded) are relatively comparable, however only influenza vaccine is widely recommended for adults. B. Fourteen countries aim to report annually on national vaccine coverage rates (VCRs), as well as have target VCRs per vaccine across different age groups. Ten countries use either electronic immunisation records or a centralised registry for childhood vaccinations, and seven for other age group vaccinations. C. National VCRs for infant (primary diphtheria tetanus pertussis (DTP)), adolescent (human papillomavirus (HPV)) and older adult (seasonal influenza) UMV programmes found ranges of: 89.1% to 98.2% for DTP-containing vaccines, 5% to 85.9% for HPV vaccination, and 4.3% to 71.6% for influenza vaccine. Regarding reported disease incidence, a wide range was found across countries for measles, mumps and rubella (in children), and hepatitis B and invasive pneumococcal disease (in all ages). These findings reflect an individual approach to vaccination by country. High VCRs can be achieved, particularly for paediatric vaccinations, despite different approaches, targets and reporting systems; these are not replicated in vaccines for other age groups in the same country. Additional measures to improve VCRs across all age groups are needed and could benefit from greater harmonisation in target setting, vaccination data collection and sharing across EU countries.

The quality of online health information is cause for concern in general, and the spread of mis/disinformation on the benefits and risks of vaccines has certainly been fueling vaccine hesitancy. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have entered an era of unprecedented “infodemic.” There has never been a more urgent time to address the long-standing question of how to overcome the deleterious influence of exposure to online mis/disinformation on vaccine uptake. eHealth literacy, a skill set including media literacy, is key to navigating the web in search for health information and processing the one encountered through social media. Studies assessing the impact of increasing eHealth literacy on behavioral attitudes and health outcomes in the general population are relatively scarce to date. Yet for many reasons, leveraging eHealth literacy skills, and more specifically, media literacy, could be of great value to help mitigate the detrimental effects of erroneous information on vaccination decision-making. In this paper, we make the case that eHealth and media literacies should be viewed as fundamental skills that have the potential to empower citizens to better recognize online mis/disinformation and make informed decisions about vaccination as any other health matters.