Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Vaccine. 1 April 2024; Online ahead of print; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.053
Kimbugwe G, Vatrinet R, Mwanga JA, Kakuru R, Mpeirwe D, et al.
Vaccine. 1 April 2024; Online ahead of print; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.053
BACKGROUND
Understanding the knowledge, perception and attitudes towards Ebola vaccines is an important factor in ensuring future use of these vaccines. A qualitative methods study embedded in an Ebola vaccine immunogenicity and safety trial (NCT04028349) was conducted to explore the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare (HCWs) and frontline workers (FLWs), about Ebola vaccines and their willingness to participate or recommend participation in Uganda.
METHOD
We carried out focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews before and after vaccination, with 70 HCWs and FLWs who consented to participate in the trial, and in the qualitative component, from August to September 2019. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.
RESULTS
Respondents showed good knowledge about Ebola and the vaccines in general, and had wide access to information through several channels, including the study team. On prevention, particular attention was given to effective communication within health facilities. Misconceptions were mainly around route of transmission, animal origin and types of vaccines. Previous fears were based on rumours circulating in the community, mainly about the presence of the virus in the vaccine, side effects and intention to harm (e.g. by "the whites"), ultimately insisting on transparency, trust and involvement of local leaders. Acceptability of participation was motivated by the need to protect self and others, and the willingness to advance research. Majority were willing to recommend participation to their community.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, information sharing leads to a better understanding and acceptance of vaccine trials and a positive vaccination experience can be a deciding factor in the acceptance of others. Particular attention should be paid to involving the community in addressing misconceptions and fears, while ensuring that participants have access to vaccination sites in terms of transport, and that they are properly accommodated at the study site including staying for a reasonable period of time.
Understanding the knowledge, perception and attitudes towards Ebola vaccines is an important factor in ensuring future use of these vaccines. A qualitative methods study embedded in an Ebola vaccine immunogenicity and safety trial (NCT04028349) was conducted to explore the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare (HCWs) and frontline workers (FLWs), about Ebola vaccines and their willingness to participate or recommend participation in Uganda.
METHOD
We carried out focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews before and after vaccination, with 70 HCWs and FLWs who consented to participate in the trial, and in the qualitative component, from August to September 2019. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.
RESULTS
Respondents showed good knowledge about Ebola and the vaccines in general, and had wide access to information through several channels, including the study team. On prevention, particular attention was given to effective communication within health facilities. Misconceptions were mainly around route of transmission, animal origin and types of vaccines. Previous fears were based on rumours circulating in the community, mainly about the presence of the virus in the vaccine, side effects and intention to harm (e.g. by "the whites"), ultimately insisting on transparency, trust and involvement of local leaders. Acceptability of participation was motivated by the need to protect self and others, and the willingness to advance research. Majority were willing to recommend participation to their community.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, information sharing leads to a better understanding and acceptance of vaccine trials and a positive vaccination experience can be a deciding factor in the acceptance of others. Particular attention should be paid to involving the community in addressing misconceptions and fears, while ensuring that participants have access to vaccination sites in terms of transport, and that they are properly accommodated at the study site including staying for a reasonable period of time.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 6 September 2023; Volume 109 (Issue 3); 511-514.; DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.22-0606
Kabore Y, Vatrinet R, Guindo O, Moussa SH, Schilling WHK, et al.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 6 September 2023; Volume 109 (Issue 3); 511-514.; DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.22-0606
In 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a rapidly emerging virus causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, had no known effective prophylaxis and no widely available proven effective antiviral treatment. Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine was identified as an early potential therapeutic candidate drawing on evidence from reports of both in vitro and in vivo testing. A multicountry placebo-controlled randomized trial was set to evaluate the use of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine to prevent infection in healthcare workers and staff working in a health facility involved in COVID-19 management. One of the sites of this trial was in Niger. In Niger, of the 240 persons who were provided information about the study and with whom participation was discussed, only five participants provided their informed consent. In this article, we describe the key difficulties encountered in the conduct of this trial from the perspective of the site study team. Among the difficulties, we recognize that the epidemic context, controversy surrounding hydroxychloroquine, vaccine rollout, participants’ perspectives, and trial design had a major impact on participation.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Toxicon: X. 1 March 2022; Volume 13; 100089.; DOI:10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100089
Alcoba G, Potet J, Vatrinet R, Singh SN, Nanclares C, et al.
Toxicon: X. 1 March 2022; Volume 13; 100089.; DOI:10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100089
Snakebite envenoming is a public health concern in many countries affected by humanitarian crises. Its magnitude was recognized internationally but associations between snakebite peaks and humanitarian crises were never clearly established or analysed. This scoping review searched any available evidence of this hypothesized association between snakebite types of crises, through PubMed/Medline by two researchers. The search also included hand searching, and reports from humanitarian organizations working in this area.
The scoping review yielded 41 results. None described a robust epidemiological link or evidence of causality. There is an evidence gap regarding our research question. Several publications however point or hint towards the occurrence of snakebite outbreaks during conflict, displacement, floods, and migration of impoverished agricultural workers. Non-systematic screening yielded another 11 publications (52 in total). We found Médecins Sans Frontières routine reports showing that 6469 patients were admitted in 2019 throughout its projects in 17 countries. The impact of snakebite was the highest in four countries particularly affected by humanitarian crises, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, and Yemen, with some hospitals receiving more than 1000 annual admissions. Time correlations with conflict and events are shown in Figures. We found no published epidemiological data formally showing any associations between humanitarian crises and snakebite incidence. However, the search publications showing peaks during crises, and monitoring curves in four countries point towards an increased risk during humanitarian crises.
We call for urgent population-based studies and surveillance. Stakeholders should consider upgrading snakebite care and antivenom supply during humanitarian crises in snakebite-endemic countries.
The scoping review yielded 41 results. None described a robust epidemiological link or evidence of causality. There is an evidence gap regarding our research question. Several publications however point or hint towards the occurrence of snakebite outbreaks during conflict, displacement, floods, and migration of impoverished agricultural workers. Non-systematic screening yielded another 11 publications (52 in total). We found Médecins Sans Frontières routine reports showing that 6469 patients were admitted in 2019 throughout its projects in 17 countries. The impact of snakebite was the highest in four countries particularly affected by humanitarian crises, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, and Yemen, with some hospitals receiving more than 1000 annual admissions. Time correlations with conflict and events are shown in Figures. We found no published epidemiological data formally showing any associations between humanitarian crises and snakebite incidence. However, the search publications showing peaks during crises, and monitoring curves in four countries point towards an increased risk during humanitarian crises.
We call for urgent population-based studies and surveillance. Stakeholders should consider upgrading snakebite care and antivenom supply during humanitarian crises in snakebite-endemic countries.