The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine has been heralded as key to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccination programme success will rely on public willingness to be vaccinated. We used a multi-methods approach - involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews - to investigate parents’ and guardians’ views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine. 1252 parents and guardians (aged 16 + years) who reported living in England with a child aged 18 months or under completed the survey. Nineteen survey participants were interviewed. Most survey participants reported they would likely accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves (Definitely 55.8%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 34.3%) and their child/children (Definitely 48.2%; Unsure but leaning towards yes 40.9%). Less than 4% of survey participants reported that they would definitely not accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Survey participants were more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves than their child/children. Participants that self-reported as Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed or Other ethnicity were almost 3 times more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and their children than White British, White Irish and White Other participants. Survey participants from lower-income households were also more likely to reject a COVID-19 vaccine. In open-text survey responses and interviews, self-protection from COVID-19 was reported as the main reason for vaccine acceptance. Common concerns identified in open-text responses and interviews were around COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, mostly prompted by the newness and rapid development of the vaccine. Information on how COVID-19 vaccines are developed and tested, including their safety and efficacy, must be communicated clearly to the public. To prevent inequalities in uptake, it is crucial to understand and address factors that may affect COVID-19 vaccine acceptability in ethnic minority and lower-income groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

Misinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2). We searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2). Of 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results. This review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.

Over the past decade, discussion of integrated care has become more widespread and prominent in both high- and low-income health care systems (LMICs). The trend reflects the mismatch between an increasing burden of chronic disease and local health care systems which are still largely focused on hospital-based treatment of individual clinical episodes and also the long-standing proliferation of vertical donor-funded disease-specific programmes in LMICs which have disrupted horizontal, or integrated, care. Integration is a challenging concept to define, in part because of its multiple dimensions and varied scope: from integrated clinical care for individual patients to broader systems integration—or linkage—involving a wide range of interconnected services (e.g. social services and health care). In this commentary, we compare integrated care in high- and lower-income countries. Although contexts may differ significantly between these settings, there are many common features of how integration has been understood and common challenges in its implementation. We discuss the different approaches to, scope of, and impacts of, integration including barriers and facilitators to the processes of implementation. With the burden of disease becoming more alike across settings, we consider what gains there could be from comparative learning between these settings which have constituted two separate strands of research until now.

The WHO health systems Building Blocks framework has become ubiquitous in health systems research. However, it was not developed as a research instrument, but rather to facilitate investments of resources in health systems. In this paper, we reflect on the advantages and limitations of using the framework in applied research, as experienced in three empirical vaccine studies we have undertaken.

In 2014, over half (54%) of the world’s population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage. We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016. Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas. Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.

This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to no vaccination or multi-dose schedules among vaccine trial participants. Medline, EMBASE, Global Health Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications and conference abstracts (dated January 1999-August 2018) using MeSH and non-MeSH terms for human papillomavirus AND vaccines AND (immunogenicity OR efficacy/effectiveness) AND dosage. Search results were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included articles, and a narrative synthesis conducted on efficacy against HPV16/18 infection and humoral immunogenicity. Seven of 6,523 unique records identified were included in the review. Six were nested observational studies of participants randomised to receive two or three doses in three large HPV vaccine trials, in which some participants did not complete their allocated schedules. One small pilot study prospectively allocated participants to receive one or no vaccine dose. Frequency of HPV16/18 infection was low (e.g. 0.05 in all cases). Frequency of infection was significantly lower in one-dose recipients compared to unvaccinated controls (p < 0.01 for all infection endpoints in each study). HPV16/18 seropositivity rates were high in all HPV vaccine recipients (100% in three of four studies reporting this endpoint), though antibody levels were lower with one compared to two or three doses. This review supports the premise that one HPV vaccine dose may be as effective in preventing HPV infection as multi-dose schedules in healthy young women. However, it also highlights the paucity of available evidence from purpose-designed, prospectively-randomised trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials assessing the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to currently-recommended schedules are awaited.