Background: Vaccination against the novel coronavirus is one of the most effective strategies for combating the global Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy has emerged as a major obstacle in several regions of the world, including Africa. The objective of this rapid review was to summarize the literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa. Methods: We searched Scopus, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, and OVID Medline for studies published from January 1, 2020, to March 8, 2022, examining acceptance or hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in Africa. Study characteristics and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were extracted from the included articles. Results: A total of 71 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Majority (n = 25, 35%) of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia. Studies conducted in Botswana, Cameroun, Cote D’Ivoire, DR Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe were also included in the review. The vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 6.9 to 97.9%. The major reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns with vaccine safety and side effects, lack of trust for pharmaceutical industries and misinformation or conflicting information from the media. Factors associated with positive attitudes towards the vaccine included being male, having a higher level of education, and fear of contracting the virus. Conclusions: Our review demonstrated the contextualized and multifaceted reasons inhibiting or encouraging vaccine uptake in African countries. This evidence is key to operationalizing interventions based on facts as opposed to assumptions. Our paper provided important considerations for addressing the challenge of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and blunting the impact of the pandemic in Africa.

Background: While the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods and findings: On January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework.Conclusions: Despite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.

Introduction: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to disrupt the availability and utilization of routine and emergency health care services, with differing impacts in jurisdictions across the world. In this scoping review, we set out to synthesize documentation of the direct and indirect effect of the pandemic, and national responses to it, on maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in Africa. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the most significant impacts identified up to March 15, 2022. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus electronic databases. We included peer reviewed literature that discussed maternal and child health in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic, published from January 2020 to March 2022, and written in English. Papers that did not focus on the African region or an African country were excluded. A data-charting form was developed by the two reviewers to determine which themes to extract, and narrative descriptions were written about the extracted thematic areas. Results: Four-hundred and seventy-eight articles were identified through our literature search and 27 were deemed appropriate for analysis. We identified three overarching themes: delayed or decreased care, disruption in service provision and utilization and mitigation strategies or recommendations. Our results show that minor consideration was given to preserving and promoting health service access and utilization for mothers and children, especially in historically underserved areas in Africa. Conclusions: Reviewed literature illuminates the need for continued prioritization of maternity services, immunization, and reproductive health services. This prioritization was not given the much-needed attention during the COVID-19 pandemic yet is necessary to shield the continent’s most vulnerable population segments from the shocks of current and future global health emergencies.

Background: The development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines have generated optimism for the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and a return to normalcy. However, vaccine hesitancy, often fueled by misinformation, poses a major barrier to achieving herd immunity. Objective: We aim to investigate Twitter users’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination in Canada after vaccine rollout. Methods: We applied a weakly supervised aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) technique, which involves the human-in-the-loop system, on COVID-19 vaccination–related tweets in Canada. Automatically generated aspect and opinion terms were manually corrected by public health experts to ensure the accuracy of the terms and make them more domain-specific. Then, based on these manually corrected terms, the system inferred sentiments toward the aspects. We observed sentiments toward key aspects related to COVID-19 vaccination, and investigated how sentiments toward “vaccination” changed over time. In addition, we analyzed the most retweeted or liked tweets by observing most frequent nouns and sentiments toward key aspects. Results: After applying the ABSA system, we obtained 170 aspect terms (eg, “immunity” and “pfizer”) and 6775 opinion terms (eg, “trustworthy” for the positive sentiment and “jeopardize” for the negative sentiment). While manually verifying or editing these terms, our public health experts selected 20 key aspects related to COVID-19 vaccination for analysis. The sentiment analysis results for the 20 key aspects revealed negative sentiments related to “vaccine distribution,” “side effects,” “allergy,” “reactions,” and “anti-vaxxer,” and positive sentiments related to “vaccine campaign,” “vaccine candidates,” and “immune response.” These results indicate that the Twitter users express concerns about the safety of vaccines but still consider vaccines as the option to end the pandemic. In addition, compared to the sentiment of the remaining tweets, the most retweeted or liked tweets showed more positive sentiment overall toward key aspects (P<.001), especially vaccines (P<.001) and vaccination (P=.009). Further investigation of the most retweeted or liked tweets revealed two opposing trends in Twitter users who showed negative sentiments toward vaccines: the “anti-vaxxer” population that used negative sentiments as a means to discourage vaccination and the “Covid Zero” population that used negative sentiments to encourage vaccinations while critiquing the public health response. Conclusions: Our study examined public sentiments toward COVID-19 vaccination on tweets over an extended period in Canada. Our findings could inform public health agencies to design and implement interventions to promote vaccination.

Background: Clinical trials show high efficacy of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), but there are limited data from “real-world” settings. We aimed to evaluate SOF/VEL effectiveness for all hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes (GTs) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods: We used the BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort, which includes all HCV cases in the province (1990–2015) linked to administrative databases, including prescriptions to end of 2018. We measured sustained virologic response (SVR; negative RNA ≥10 weeks after treatment end) and identified characteristics associated with non-SVR. Conservatively, we excluded individuals with no assessment for SVR if their last RNA test after treatment initiation was negative (but included if positive). Results: Of 2821 eligible participants, most were infected with GT1 (1076, 38.1%) or GT3 (1072, 38.0%), and a minority (278, 9.9%) were treated with RBV. SVR was 94.6% (2670/2821) overall and 94.5% (1017/1076) for GT1, 96.4% (512/531) for GT2, and 93.7% (1004/1072) for GT3. When disaggregated by GT, treatment regimen, and cirrhosis/treatment experience, SVR was lowest (30/40, 75.0%) among treatment-experienced GT3 individuals treated with RBV. Characteristics associated with non-SVR in multivariable analysis included younger age, RBV addition, and being a person with HIV (PWH) or who injects/injected drugs (PWID). When treatment regimen (±RBV) was removed from multivariable model, treatment experience was associated with non-SVR for GT3. Of 151 non-SVR individuals, 56.3% were nonvirological failures (treatment incomplete/no assessment for SVR) and 43.7% were virological failures (nonresponse/relapse). A disproportionately high percentage of non-SVR among PWID was due to nonvirological failure. Conclusions: SOF/VEL was highly effective in this “real-world” population-based cohort. Additional support is required for PWID/PWH to reach SVR.