Vaccine hesitancy, which embodies the unwillingness to receive vaccines when vaccination services are available and accessible, is one of the greatest threats to global health. Although vaccine hesitancy has existed among a small percentage of people for centuries, its harmful effects are likely to be more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic than ever before. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will pose substantial risks for both people who delay or refuse to be vaccinated and the wider community. It will make communities unable to reach thresholds of coverage necessary for herd immunity against COVID-19, thus unnecessarily perpetuating the pandemic and resulting in untold suffering and deaths. Vaccine hesitancy is pervasive, misinformed, contagious, and is not limited to COVID-19 vaccination. Our work shows that vaccine hesitancy is a complex and dynamic social process that reflects multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. People’s vaccination views and practices usually comprise an ongoing engagement that is contingent on unfolding personal and social circumstances, which can potentially change over time. Therefore, as COVID-19 vaccination rolls out globally, scientists and decision-makers need to investigate the scale and determinants of vaccine hesitancy in each setting; so that tailored and targeted strategies can be developed to address it.

Background: The Ugandan government recognizes mental health as a serious public health and development concern, and has of recent implemented a number of reforms aimed at strengthening the country's mental health system. The aim of this study was to provide a profile of the current mental health policy, legislation and services in Uganda. Methods: A survey was conducted of public sector mental health policy and legislation, and service resources and utilisation in Uganda, in the year 2005, using the World Health Organization's Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) Version 2.2. Results: Uganda's draft mental health policy encompasses many positive reforms, including decentralization and integration of mental health services into Primary Health Care (PHC). The mental health legislation is however outdated and offensive. Services are still significantly underfunded (with only 1% of the health expenditure going to mental health), and skewed towards urban areas. Per 100,000 population, there were 1.83 beds in mental hospitals, 1.4 beds in community based psychiatric inpatient units, and 0.42 beds in forensic facilities. The total personnel working in mental health facilities were 310 (1.13 per 100,000 population). Only 0.8% of the medical doctors and 4% of the nurses had specialized in psychiatry. Conclusion: Although there have been important developments in Uganda's mental health policy and services, there remains a number of shortcomings, especially in terms of resources and service delivery. There is an urgent need for more research on the current burden of mental disorders and the functioning of mental health programs and services in Uganda.

Introduction: Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to personal health, protecting vulnerable populations, reopening socio-economic life, and achieving population health and safety through immunity. The primary aim of this review was to investigate the extent and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in South Africa to inform the development of strategies to address it. A secondary aim was to enhance understandings of and responses to vaccine hesitancy more generally in South Africa, with potential positive effect on vaccination uptake during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Areas covered: We reviewed the findings from surveys conducted in South Africa from February 2020 to March 2021 that investigated acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Surveys were identified through searching electronic databases of peer-reviewed and gray literature and contacting experts. Expert opinion: The review reveals the inherently social nature of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in South Africa, potentially influenced by age, race, education, politics, geographical location, and employment. Along with the provision of information, COVID-19 vaccine communication strategies need to form part of broader trust-building measures that focus on relationships, transparency, participation, and justice. The pandemic also provides a unique opportunity to positively intervene and reduce vaccine hesitancy trends more generally in South Africa and potentially elsewhere.

Vaccination programmes in Africa have made extraordinary progress over the last four decades. Yet, vaccine hesitancy threatens to erode these gains. Vaccine hesitancy is a continuum between vaccine acceptance and refusal. A growing number of people in Africa are delaying or refusing recommended vaccines for themselves or their children, even when safe and effective vaccines are available. This predisposes communities to infectious diseases, resulting in multiple disease outbreaks, ultimately consuming resources and costing lives. Vaccine hesitancy is currently receiving unprecedented global attention, however, there remains several knowledge gaps, particularly in Africa. The vast majority of research on this topic has been conducted in high income countries. Little is therefore known about the nature and causes of vaccine hesitancy in Africa, and evidence-based interventions in the region to address it are also limited. Moreover, tools to measure vaccine hesitancy are scarce, and none that exist have been validated in Africa. We discuss these knowledge gaps, and propose a research and capacity building agenda to better measure and overcome vaccine hesitancy in Africa. Ultimately, this is essential if we hope to enhance and sustain public demand for vaccination and preserve the tremendous achievements of vaccination programmes on the continent.

Background Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents’ views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination. Objectives ‐ Explore parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. ‐ Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. ‐ Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020. Selection criteria We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents’ or caregivers’ views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided. Data collection and analysis We used a pre‐specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income‐level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta‐ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review. Main results We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South‐East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high‐, middle‐, and low‐income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents’ vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents’ vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents’ vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, ‘neoliberal logic’, suggests that many parents, particularly from high‐income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, ‘social exclusion’, suggests that some parents, particularly from low‐ and middle‐income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. Authors'...