Project description:BackgroundAnticipating an initial shortage of vaccines for COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States developed priority vaccine allocations for specific demographic groups in the population. This study evaluates the performance of the CDC vaccine allocation strategy with respect to multiple potentially competing vaccination goals (minimizing mortality, cases, infections, and years of life lost (YLL)), under the same framework as the CDC allocation: four priority vaccination groups and population demographics stratified by age, comorbidities, occupation and living condition (congested or non-congested).Methods and findingsWe developed a compartmental disease model that incorporates key elements of the current pandemic including age-varying susceptibility to infection, age-varying clinical fraction, an active case-count dependent social distancing level, and time-varying infectivity (accounting for the emergence of more infectious virus strains). The CDC allocation strategy is compared to all other possibly optimal allocations that stagger vaccine roll-out in up to four phases (17.5 million strategies). The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all vaccination goals but never optimally. Under the developed model, the CDC allocation deviated from the optimal allocations by small amounts, with 0.19% more deaths, 4.0% more cases, 4.07% more infections, and 0.97% higher YLL, than the respective optimal strategies. The CDC decision to not prioritize the vaccination of individuals under the age of 16 was optimal, as was the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers. Finally, a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes compared to the CDC allocation.ConclusionThe developed approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States, or adapted for use by other countries seeking to optimize the effectiveness of their vaccine allocation strategies.
Project description:This exploratory study investigated the web accessibility of 54 official COVID-19 vaccine registration websites in the US and their concordance with the WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 guidelines. We employed AChecker, WAVE, and SortSite web accessibility evaluation tools to conduct automated analyses of these websites. The results showed suboptimal compliance with WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 guidelines, as determined using the AChecker, WAVE, and SortSite tools. These shortcomings in compliance may pose difficulties to users with disabilities as they access information on the websites. Based on our findings, we offered recommendations for states and other authorities to improve the accessibility of their websites to ensure that users with disabilities can independently schedule vaccination appointments.
Project description:As part of a regulatory commitment for post-licensure safety monitoring of live, oral human rotavirus vaccine (RV1), this study compared the incidence rates (IR) of intussusception, acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) hospitalization, Kawasaki disease, convulsion, and mortality in RV1 recipients versus inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) recipients in concurrent (cIPV) and recent historical (hIPV) comparison cohorts. Vaccine recipients were identified in 2 claims databases from August 2008 - June 2013 (RV1 and cIPV) and January 2004 - July 2008 (hIPV). Outcomes were identified in the 0-59 days following the first 2 vaccine doses. Intussusception, Kawasaki disease, and convulsion were confirmed via medical record review. Outcome IRs were estimated. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were obtained from Poisson regression models. A post-hoc self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis compared convulsion IRs in a 0-7 day post-vaccination period to a 15-30 day post-vaccination period. We identified 57,931 RV1, 173,384 cIPV, and 159,344 hIPV recipients. No increased risks for intussusception, LRTI, Kawasaki disease, or mortality were observed. The convulsion IRRs were elevated following RV1 Dose 1 (cIPV: 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27 - 3.38; hIPV: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.24 - 3.38), a finding which is inconclusive as it was observed in only one of the claims databases. The IRR following RV1 Dose 1 in the SCCS analysis lacked precision (2.40, 95% CI: 0.73 - 7.86). No increased convulsion risk was observed following RV1 Dose 2. Overall, this study supports the favorable safety profile of RV1. Continued monitoring for safety signals through routine surveillance is needed to ensure vaccine safety.
Project description:BackgroundDental therapists (DTs) are primary care dental providers, used globally, and were introduced in the United States (US) in 2005. DTs have now been adopted in 13 states and several Tribal nations.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to qualitatively examine the drivers and outcomes of the US dental therapy movement through a health equity lens, including community engagement, implementation and dissemination, and access to oral health care.MethodsThe study compiled a comprehensive document library on the dental therapy movement including literature, grant documents, media and press, and gray literature. Key stakeholder interviews were conducted across the spectrum of engagement in the movement. Dedoose software was used for qualitative coding. Themes were assessed within a holistic model of oral health equity.FindingsHealth equity is a driving force for dental therapy adoption. Community engagement has been evident in diverse statewide coalitions. National accreditation standards for education programs that can be deployed in 3 years without an advanced degree reduces educational barriers for improving workforce diversity. Safe, high-quality care, improvements in access, and patient acceptability have been well documented for DTs in practice.ConclusionHaving firmly taken root politically, the impact of the dental therapy movement in the US, and the long-term health impacts, will depend on the path of implementation and a sustained commitment to the health equity principle.
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is the next great barrier for public health. Arab Americans are a rapidly growing demographic in the United States with limited information on the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. We therefore sought to study the attitudes towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine amongst Arab American health professionals living in the United States.MethodsThis was a cross sectional study utilizing an anonymous online survey. The survey was distributed via e-mail to National Arab American Medical Association members and Arab-American Center for Economic and Social Services healthcare employees. Respondents were considered vaccine hesitant if they selected responses other than a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsA total of 4000 surveys were sent via e-mail from 28 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, and 513 responses were received. The highest group of respondents were between the ages of 18-29 years and physicians constituted 48% of the respondents. On multivariable analysis, we found that respondents who had declined an influenza vaccine in the preceding 5 years (p < 0.001) and allied health professionals (medical assistants, hospital administrators, case managers, researchers, scribes, pharmacists, dieticians and social workers) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (p = 0.025). In addition, respondents earning over $150,000 US dollars annually were less likely to be vaccine hesitant and this finding was significant on multivariable analysis (p = 0.011).ConclusionsVaccine hesitancy among health care providers could have substantial impact on vaccine attitudes of the general population, and such data may help inform vaccine advocacy efforts.
Project description:COVID-19 led to a recent high-profile proposal to reintroduce oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in the United States (U.S.), initially in clinical trials, but potentially for widespread and repeated use. We explore logistical challenges related to U.S. OPV administration in 2020, review the literature related to nonspecific effects of OPV to induce innate immunity, and model the health and economic implications of the proposal. The costs of reintroducing a single OPV dose to 331 million Americans would exceed $4.4 billion. Giving a dose of bivalent OPV to the entire U.S. population would lead to an expected 40 identifiable cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio, with young Americans at the highest risk. Reintroducing any OPV use in the U.S. poses a risk of restarting transmission of OPV-related viruses and could lead to new infections in immunocompromised individuals with B-cell related primary immunodeficiencies that could lead to later cases of paralysis. Due to the lack of a currently licensed OPV in the U.S., the decision to administer OPV to Americans for nonspecific immunological effects would require purchasing limited global OPV supplies that could impact polio eradication efforts. Health economic modeling suggests no role for reintroducing OPV into the U.S. with respect to responding to COVID-19. Countries that currently use OPV experience fundamentally different risks, costs, and benefits than the U.S. Successful global polio eradication will depend on sufficient OPV supplies, achieving and maintaining high OPV coverage in OPV-using countries, and effective global OPV cessation and containment in all countries, including the U.S.
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy in the US throughout the pandemic has revealed inconsistent results. This systematic review has compared COVID-19 vaccine uptake across US and investigated predictors of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance across different groups. A search of PUBMED database was conducted till 17th July, 2021. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were screened and 65 studies were selected for a quantitative analysis. The overall vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 12 to 91.4%, the willingness of studies using the 10-point scale ranged from 3.58 to 5.12. Increased unwillingness toward COVID-19 vaccine and Black/African Americans were found to be correlated. Sex, race, age, education level, and income status were identified as determining factors of having a low or high COVID-19 vaccine uptake. A change in vaccine acceptance in the US population was observed in two studies, an increase of 10.8 and 7.4%, respectively, between 2020 and 2021. Our results confirm that hesitancy exists in the US population, highest in Black/African Americans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and low in the male sex. It is imperative for regulatory bodies to acknowledge these statistics and consequently, exert efforts to mitigate the burden of unvaccinated individuals and revise vaccine delivery plans, according to different vulnerable subgroups, across the country.
Project description:ObjectivesWe conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to evaluate how Medicare funding of inpatient COVID-19 treatments affected health equity in the United States.MethodsA DCEA, based on an existing cost-effectiveness analysis model, was conducted from the perspective of a single US payer, Medicare. The US population was divided based on race and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white) and county-level social vulnerability index (5 quintile groups) into 15 equity-relevant subgroups. The baseline distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated across the equity subgroups. Opportunity costs were estimated by converting total spend on COVID-19 inpatient treatments into health losses, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using base-case assumptions of an opportunity cost threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained and an equal distribution of opportunity costs across equity-relevant subgroups.ResultsMore socially vulnerable populations received larger per capita health benefits due to higher COVID-19 incidence and baseline in-hospital mortality. The total direct medical cost of inpatient COVID-19 interventions in the United States in 2020 was estimated at $25.83 billion with an estimated net benefit of 735 569 QALYs after adjusting for opportunity costs. Funding inpatient COVID-19 treatment reduced the population-level burden of health inequality by 0.234%. Conclusions remained robust across scenario and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first DCEA to quantify the equity implications of funding COVID-19 treatments in the United States. Medicare funding of COVID-19 treatments in the United States could improve overall health while reducing existing health inequalities.
Project description:Global vaccine prices that are tiered across countries, equitable for poorer countries, and profitable for manufacturers (TEP) can promote global vaccine equity but its implementation may require political will and public support in rich countries. A survey experiment with a demographically representative sample of US adults was conducted between April and May 2021 to investigate public support for TEP and the likelihood of collective agreement on TEP relative to alternative global vaccine pricing strategies. The experiment varied vaccine cost and provision of information about the importance of equity and profitability considerations in global vaccine pricing across eight treatment conditions. TEP of low-cost vaccines received less support than TEP of high-cost vaccines, but TEP received more public support than any alternative pricing strategy. Information about equity and profitability considerations increased support for TEP of low-cost vaccines. TEP was also the most likely pricing strategy to achieve collective agreement among participants across all treatments.
Project description:Given the scarcity of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, a chief policy question is how to allocate them among different sociodemographic groups. This paper evaluates COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies proposed to date, focusing on their stated goals; the mechanisms through which the selected allocations affect the course and burden of the pandemic; and the main epidemiological, economic, logistical, and political issues that arise when setting the prioritization strategy. The paper uses a simple, age-stratified susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered model applied to the United States to quantitatively assess the performance of alternative prioritization strategies with respect to avoided deaths, avoided infections, and life-years gained. We demonstrate that prioritizing essential workers is a viable strategy for reducing the number of cases and years of life lost, while the largest reduction in deaths is achieved by prioritizing older adults in most scenarios, even if the vaccine is effective at blocking viral transmission. Uncertainty regarding this property and potential delays in dose delivery reinforce the call for prioritizing older adults. Additionally, we investigate the strength of the equity motive that would support an allocation strategy attaching absolute priority to essential workers for a vaccine that reduces infection-fatality risk.