ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Global Polio Eradication Initiative introduced novel oral polio vaccine Type 2 (nOPV2) to address circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus Type 2 (cVDPV2). Although nOPV2 is a more genetically stable vaccine, it may not have the immediate trust of communities and health workers due to its novelty, potential side effects, and introduction under an Emergency Use Listing (EUL). We explored how nOPV2 introduction might be perceived by stakeholders and identified communications barriers related to nOPV2 hesitancy. METHODS: This work was conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and Nigeria between January and March 2020. We used a rapid qualitative approach to conduct focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with four stakeholder groups: caregivers of children under 5, polio frontline workers, healthcare practitioners, and social/health influencers. Data are presented according to awareness, attitudes/beliefs, and concerns about cVDPV2 and nOPV2. RESULTS: Stakeholders were largely unaware of cVDPV2. The causes of recent polio outbreaks were characterized as poor sanitation, under-immunization/in-migration, or poor vaccine management procedures. Caregivers were aware of and concerned by repeated vaccination campaigns. All stakeholder groups anticipated initial hesitancy, fear, and suspicion from caregivers due to nOPV2 introduction, with primary concerns linked to vaccine testing, safety, effectiveness, side effects, and support from authorities. Stakeholders thought the term "genetic modification" could be controversial but that introduction under an EUL would be acceptable given the emergency nature of cVDPV2 outbreaks. Stakeholders called for adequate and timely information to counter concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial concerns, stakeholders felt nOPV2 would ultimately be accepted by caregivers. However, public health officials have a small window for "getting things right" when introducing nOPV2. Strategic communication interventions addressing key concerns and targeted communications with stakeholder groups, especially frontline workers, could improve community acceptance of nOPV2.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. METHODS: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. RESULTS: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. CONCLUSIONS: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.