Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of healthcare and frontline workers to participate in an Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda.

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.

Combining stool and stories: exploring antimicrobial resistance among a longitudinal cohort of international health students.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health concern that requires transdisciplinary and bio-social approaches. Despite the continuous calls for a transdisciplinary understanding of this problem, there is still a lack of such studies. While microbiology generates knowledge about the biomedical nature of bacteria, social science explores various social practices related to the acquisition and spread of these bacteria. However, the two fields remain disconnected in both methodological and conceptual levels. Focusing on the acquisition of multidrug resistance genes, encoding extended-spectrum betalactamases (CTX-M) and carbapenemases (NDM-1) among a travelling population of health students, this article proposes a methodology of 'stool and stories' that combines methods of microbiology and sociology, thus proposing a way forward to a collaborative understanding of AMR. METHODS: A longitudinal study with 64 health students travelling to India was conducted in 2017. The study included multiple-choice questionnaires (n = 64); a collection of faecal swabs before travel (T0, n = 45), in the first week in India (T1, n = 44), the second week in India (T2, n = 41); and semi-structured interviews (n = 11). Stool samples were analysed by a targeted metagenomic approach. Data from semi-structured interviews were analysed using the method of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of ESBL- and carbapenemase resistance genes significantly increased during travel indicating it as a potential risk; for CTX-M from 11% before travel to 78% during travel and for NDM-1 from 2% before travel to 11% during travel. The data from semi-structured interviews showed that participants considered AMR mainly in relation to individual antibiotic use or its presence in a clinical environment but not to travelling. CONCLUSION: The microbiological analysis confirmed previous research showing that international human mobility is a risk factor for AMR acquisition. However, sociological methods demonstrated that travellers understand AMR primarily as a clinical problem and do not connect it to travelling. These findings indicate an important gap in understanding AMR as a bio-social problem raising a question about the potential effectiveness of biologically driven AMR stewardship programs among travellers. Further development of the 'stool and stories' approach is important for a transdisciplinary basis of AMR stewardship.