ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarize existing global knowledge gaps on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human health, focusing on the World Health Organization (WHO) bacterial priority pathogens, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and selected fungi. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of gray and peer-reviewed literature, published in English from January 2012 through December 2021, that reported on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care of drug-resistant infections. We extracted relevant knowledge gaps and, through an iterative process, consolidated those into thematic research questions. RESULTS: Of 8409 publications screened, 1156 were included, including 225 (19.5%) from low- and middle-income countries. A total of 2340 knowledge gaps were extracted, in the following areas: antimicrobial research and development, AMR burden and drivers, resistant tuberculosis, antimicrobial stewardship, diagnostics, infection prevention and control, antimicrobial consumption and use data, immunization, sexually transmitted infections, AMR awareness and education, policies and regulations, fungi, water sanitation and hygiene, and foodborne diseases. The knowledge gaps were consolidated into 177 research questions, including 78 (44.1%) specifically relevant to low- and middle-income countries and 65 (36.7%) targeting vulnerable populations. CONCLUSION: This scoping review presents the most comprehensive compilation of AMR-related knowledge gaps to date, informing a priority-setting exercise to develop the WHO Global AMR Research Agenda for the human health sector.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Anti-Infective Agents , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , World Health Organization , BacteriaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a key tool against COVID-19. However, in many settings it is not clear how acceptable COVID-19 vaccination is among the general population, or how hesitancy correlates with risk of disease acquisition. In this study we conducted a nationally representative survey in Pakistan to measure vaccination perceptions and social contacts in the context of COVID-19 control measures and vaccination programmes. METHODS: We conducted a vaccine perception and social contact survey with 3,658 respondents across five provinces in Pakistan, between 31 May and 29 June 2021. Respondents were asked a series of vaccine perceptions questions, to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, and a number of other questions regarding the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined variation in perceptions and contact patterns by geographic and demographic factors. We describe knowledge, experiences and perceived risks of COVID-19. We explored variation in contact patterns by individual characteristics and vaccine hesitancy, and compared to patterns from non-pandemic periods. RESULTS: Self-reported adherence to self-isolation guidelines was poor, and 51% of respondents did not know where to access a COVID-19 test. Although 48.1% of participants agreed that they would get a vaccine if offered, vaccine hesitancy was higher than in previous surveys, and greatest in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces and among respondents of lower socioeconomic status. Participants reported a median of 5 contacts the previous day (IQR: 3-5, mean 14.0, 95%CI: 13.2, 14.9). There were no substantial differences in the number of contacts reported by individual characteristics, but contacts varied substantially among respondents reporting more or less vaccine hesitancy. Contacts were highly assortative, particularly outside the household where 97% of men's contacts were with other men. We estimate that social contacts were 9% lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although the perceived risk of COVID-19 in Pakistan is low in the general population, around half of participants in this survey indicated they would get vaccinated if offered. Vaccine impact studies which do not account for correlation between social contacts and vaccine hesitancy may incorrectly estimate the impact of vaccines, for example, if unvaccinated people have more contacts.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Male , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pakistan/epidemiology , Pandemics , VaccinationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Social contact studies help measure the effectiveness of NPIs and estimate parameters for modelling SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, few contact studies have been conducted in Africa. METHODS: We analysed nationally representative cross-sectional survey data from 19 African Union Member States, collected by the Partnership for Evidence-based Responses to COVID-19 (PERC) via telephone interviews at two time points (August 2020 and February 2021). Adult respondents reported contacts made in the previous day by age group, demographic characteristics, and their attitudes towards COVID-19. We described mean and median contacts across these characteristics and related contacts to Google Mobility reports and the Oxford Government Response Stringency Index for each country at the two time points. RESULTS: Mean reported contacts varied across countries with the lowest reported in Ethiopia (9, SD=16, median = 4, IQR = 8) in August 2020 and the highest in Sudan (50, SD=53, median = 33, IQR = 40) in February 2021. Contacts of people aged 18-55 represented 50% of total contacts, with most contacts in household and work or study settings for both surveys. Mean contacts increased for Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sudan, and Uganda and decreased for Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Tunisia between the two time points. Men had more contacts than women and contacts were consistent across urban or rural settings (except in Cameroon and Kenya, where urban respondents had more contacts than rural ones, and in Senegal and Zambia, where the opposite was the case). There were no strong and consistent variations in the number of mean or median contacts by education level, self-reported health, perceived self-reported risk of infection, vaccine acceptance, mask ownership, and perceived risk of COVID-19 to health. Mean contacts were correlated with Google mobility (coefficient 0.57, p=0.051 and coefficient 0.28, p=0.291 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively) and Stringency Index (coefficient -0.12, p = 0.304 and coefficient -0.33, p=0.005 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These are the first COVID-19 social contact data collected for 16 of the 19 countries surveyed. We find a high reported number of daily contacts in all countries and substantial variations in mean contacts across countries and by gender. Increased stringency and decreased mobility were associated with a reduction in the number of contacts. These data may be useful to understand transmission patterns, model infection transmission, and for pandemic planning.