Background: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is sweeping across the globe, there is an urgent need to develop effective vaccines as the most powerful strategy to end the pandemic. This study aimed to examine how factors related to vaccine characteristics, their social normative influence and convenience of vaccination can affect the public's preference for the uptake of the COVID‐19 vaccine in China.Methods: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to a sample of China's general population. Participants were asked to make a series of hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for different attributes of the vaccine. A mixed logit regression model was used to analyse the DCE data. Willingness to pay for each attribute was also calculated.Results: Data of 1236 participants who provided valid responses were included in the analysis. There was strong public preference for high effectiveness of the vaccine, followed by long protective duration, very few adverse events and being manufactured overseas. Price was the least important attribute affecting the public preference in selecting the COVID‐19 vaccine.Conclusions: The strong public preferences detected in this study should be considered when developing COVID‐19 vaccination programme in China. The results provide useful information for policymakers to identify the individual and social values for a good vaccination strategy.Patient or Public Contribution: The design of the experimental choices was fully based on interviews and focus group discussions participated by 26 Chinese people with diverse socio‐economic backgrounds. Without their participation, the study would not be possible.

Background: Avoidable hospital readmission is a major problem among health systems. Although there are effective peri-discharge interventions for reducing avoidable hospital readmission, successful implementation is challenging. This systematic review of qualitative studies aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions from providers’ and service users’ perspectives. Methods: We searched four databases for potentially eligible qualitative studies from databases’ inception to March 2020, and updated literature search for studies published between January 2020 to October 2021. Barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions were identified and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs. Inductive analysis of the CFIR constructs was performed to yield thematic areas that illustrated the relationship between various facilitators and barriers, generating practical insights to key implementation issues. Results: Thirteen qualitative studies were included in this systematic review. Key issues were clustered in the CFIR constructs of Design Quality and Complexity of the intervention, strength of Network and Communication, being responsive to Patient Needs with sufficient Resource support, and External Incentives. The three thematic areas were rationality of the interventions, readiness and effort of multidisciplinary implementation teams, and influence of external stakeholders. Common barriers included (i) limited resources, (ii) poor communication among team members, (iii) incompatibility between the new intervention and existing work routine, (iv) complicated implementation process, (v) low practicality of supporting instruments, and (vi) lack of understanding about the content and effectiveness of the new interventions. Common facilitators were (i) information sharing via regular meetings on implementation issues, (ii) organizational culture that values quality and accountability, (iii) financial penalties for hospitals with high avoidable readmissions rates, (iv) external support offered via quality improvement programs and community resources, and (v) senior leadership support. Conclusion: This study synthesized commonly-presenting barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions among different healthcare organizations. Findings may inform development of implementation strategies in different health systems after appropriate tailoring, based on a consensus-based formative research process.

Introduction: In the Asia‐Pacific, pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a newly introduced public health intervention for minimizing HIV transmission, the coverage of which has remained limited. The best delivery models and strategies for broadening access of the vulnerable communities are not fully known. This review identified PrEP programmes reported in the Asia‐Pacific, which were classified by delivery models and assessed with a healthcare accessibility framework.Methods: We performed a literature search on PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE using relevant search terms, manual searched grey literature by visiting relevant websites, examined reference lists and contacted authors for clarification of included PrEP programmes reported through July 2019. A structured table was used for data extraction and summarizing findings in accordance with the five constructs of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability and appropriateness grounded in the conceptual framework of Healthcare Accessibility.Results and discussion: This literature search yielded a total of 1308 publications; 119 full texts and abstracts were screened, and 24 publications were included in the review. We identified 11 programmes implemented in seven cities/countries in the Asia‐Pacific. A typology of four PrEP delivery models was delineated: (a) fee‐based public service model; (b) fee‐based community setting model; (c) free public service model; and (d) free community setting model. Overall, the free community setting model was most commonly adopted in the Asia‐Pacific, with the strength to boost the capacity of facility and human resources, which enhanced “approachability”, “availability” and “acceptability.” The free public service model was characterized by components designed in improving “approachability,” “availability” and “appropriateness,” with attention on equity in accessing PrEP. Among free‐based models, long‐term affordability both to the government and PrEP users would need to be maximized to increase accessibility. Alongside the need for raising awareness, supportive environments and ensuring timely access were means for enabling the development of a sustainable PrEP service.Conclusion: PrEP programmes could be classified by delivery models through the five constructs of healthcare accessibility. While the coverage of PrEP remains limited in the Asia‐Pacific, an evaluation of these models could benchmark best practices, which would in turn allow effective models to be designed.

The complex needs of patients with multiple chronic diseases call for integrated care (IC). This scoping review examines several published Asian IC programmes and their relevant components and elements in managing multimorbidity patients. A scoping review was conducted by searching electronic databases encompassing Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Three key concepts – 1) integrated care, 2) multimorbidity, and 3) Asian countries – were used to define searching strategies. Studies were included if an IC programme in Asia for multimorbidity was described or evaluated. Data extraction for IC components and elements was carried out by adopting the SELFIE framework. This review yielded 1,112 articles, of which 156 remained after the title and abstract screening and 27 studies after the full-text screening – with 23 IC programmes identified from seven Asian countries. The top 5 mentioned IC components were service delivery (n = 23), workforce (n = 23), leadership and governance (n = 23), monitoring (n = 15), and environment (n = 14); whist financing (n = 9) was least mentioned. Compared to EU/US countries, technology and medical products (Asia: 40%, EU/US: 43%-100%) and multidisciplinary teams (Asia: 26%, EU/US: 50%–81%) were reported less in Asia. Most programmes involved more micro-level elements that coordinate services at the individual level (n = 20) than meso- and macro-level elements, and programmes generally incorporated horizontal and vertical integration (n = 14). In the IC programmes for patients with multimorbidity in Asia, service delivery, leadership, and workforce were most frequently mentioned, while the financing component was least mentioned. There appears to be considerable scope for development.