Experience with Contraceptive Dosage Forms and Interest in Novel PrEP Technologies in Women.

New pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) strategies tailored to the needs and expectations of individuals at risk of HIV acquisition are needed. In the CAPRISA 082 prospective cohort study in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, sexually active women aged 18 to 30 reported, through interviewer-administered questionnaires, on their prior contraceptive experience and interest in both approved and potential future PrEP dosage forms (oral PrEP, long-acting injectable PrEP, and PrEP implants) between March 2016 and February 2018. Univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to detect associations between women's prior and current contraceptive use and interest in PrEP options. Of 425 women enrolled, 381 (89.6%) had used at least one modern female contraceptive method previously, with injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) being used by 79.8% (n = 339). Women were more likely to show interest in a future PrEP implant if they were currently using (aRR 2.1, CI 1.43-3.07, p = 0.0001) or had ever used (aRR 1.65, CI 1.14-2.40, p = 0.0087) a contraceptive implant, and were more likely to choose an implant as their first choice method than the implant-naïve (current users aRR 3.2, CI 1.79-5.73, p < 0.0001; "ever" users aRR 2.12, CI 1.16-3.86, p = 0.0142). Women were more interested in injectable PrEP if they had used injectable contraceptives (current users aRR 1.24, CI 1.06-1.46, p = 0.0088; "ever" users aRR 1.72, CI 1.20-2.48, p = 0.0033); and were more interested in oral PrEP if they had ever used oral contraceptives (aRR 1.3, CI 1.06-1.59, p = 0.0114). This apparent relationship between women's contraceptive experience and their interest in novel forms of PrEP in an equivalent dosage form may play a future role in strengthening HIV prevention efforts in women at high risk of HIV acquisition.

Perspectives of healthcare workers in South Africa on COVID-19 vaccination passports

Background: Following the rollout of several effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many countries have introduced vaccination passports or certificates as a means of certifying that an individual has been vaccinated against, is immune to, or is presently uninfected with COVID-19. An extensive ethical debate has ensued. Aim: To determine the perspectives of South African healthcare workers (HCWs) on the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination passports (C19VPs) in South Africa (SA). Setting: Healthcare workers working in various fields and practice settings throughout SA were invited to complete an online questionnaire. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed using convenience sampling via social media platforms to HCWs over a 1-month period, collecting demographic details and responses to 8 Likert-type items regarding agreement with C19VPs, ethical issues and feasibility. Each item was graded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with grouping of 4 of the 8 items exploring a common theme of C19VPs being a good idea, constituting a score out of 20. Non-parametric tests were performed to determine differences in responses between groups. Results: One thousand HCWs responded to the survey and fulfilled inclusion criteria. The majority (83.2%) of respondents were medical practitioners (MPs). Overall, most (73.5%) respondents agreed that C19VPs are a good idea. Older respondents agreed more strongly than younger respondents (medians 18 and 17, respectively, p = 0.001), and respondents in private practice agreed more strongly than those in state practice (medians 18 and 16, respectively, p = 0.042). The median response was neutral (3) in response to the ethics of C19VPs considering variations in vaccine access and tending towards disagreement (2.5) in disadvantaging poorer people. Most respondents disagreed that vaccine hesitancy would make C19VPs unethical, and responses from provinces with the highest vaccination proportions disagreed more than others with lower vaccination proportion (median 2 compared with 3, p < 0.001). There was uncertainty about the feasibility of C19VPs in SA, with older HCWs, non-students, senior MPs and those who thought C19VPs are a good idea being more likely to consider them feasible. Conclusion: The perspectives of HCWs, mainly MPs, about C19VPs in SA were obtained. Further research should focus on vaccine hesitancy and its factors in HCWs and the effect of C19VPs on restrictions, reduction in transmission and benefits on economies and mental health.