Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting infections, including COVID-19. Vaccination is a crucial method for preventing the spread of infectious diseases; however, vaccine non-acceptance can hinder optimal vaccine coverage. This research aims to evaluate the level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and the associated factors among HCWs in West Africa. Methods: A structured literature review of quantitative cross-sectional studies was conducted, searching databases including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), African Journals Online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. The review focused on studies from April 2021 to February 2023 that examined factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs in West Africa. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies were conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results: Five articles met the inclusion criteria, and they reported that the acceptance level of the COVID-19 vaccine ranged from 38.3% to 73.6%. Barriers to acceptance included concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, side effects, short duration of clinical trials, limited and false information, and lack of social trust. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among West African HCWs is influenced by sociodemographic factors, vaccine concerns, and accurate information, necessitating health promotion strategies and multisectoral collaboration for improved acceptance.

Background: Competing priorities make using a transparent and evidence-based approach important when deciding to recommend new vaccines. We conducted a literature review to document the processes and frameworks for national decision-making on new vaccine introductions and explored which key features have evolved since 2010. Methods: We searched literature published on policymaking related to vaccine introduction from March 2010 to August 2020 in six databases. We screened articles for eligibility with the following exclusion criteria: non-human or hypothetical vaccines, the sole focus on economic evaluation or decision to adopt rather than policy decision-making. We employed nine broad categories of criteria from the 2012 review for categorization and abstracted data on the country, income level, vaccine, and other relevant criteria. Results: Of the 3808 unique references screened, 116 met eligibility criteria and were classified as: a) framework of vaccine adoption decision-making (27), b) studies that analyse empirical data on or examples of vaccine adoption decision-making (45), c) theoretical and empirical articles that provide insights into the vaccine policymaking process (44 + 17 already included in the previous categories). Commonly reported criteria for decision-making were the burden of disease; vaccine efficacy/effectiveness, safety; impact on health and non-health outcomes; economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. Programmatic and acceptability aspects were not as often considered. Most (50; 82%) of the 61 articles describing the process of vaccine introduction policymaking highlighted the role of country, regional, or global evidence-informed recommendations and a robust national governance as enabling factors for vaccine adoption. Conclusions: The literature on vaccine adoption decision-making has expanded since 2010. We found that policymakers and expert advisory committee members (e.g., National Immunization Technical Advisory Group [NITAG]) increasingly value the interventions based on economic evaluations. The results of this review could guide discussions on evidence-informed immunization decision-making among country, sub-regional, and regional stakeholders.

Background: There has been little detailed systematic consideration of the delivery, setting and outcomes of paediatric Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT), although individual studies report that it is a safe and effective treatment. Objective: This scoping review aimed to examine what is known about the delivery, settings and outcomes of paediatric OPAT and to identify key knowledge deficits. Design: A scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework was undertaken. Data sources: Keywords were identified and used to search MEDLINE and CINAHL. Study appraisal methods: Primary research studies were included if samples comprised children and young people 21 or under, who had received OPAT at home or in a day treatment centre. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to review the methodological quality of the studies MAIN FINDINGS: From a preliminary pool of 157 articles, 51 papers were selected for full review. 19 studies fitted the inclusion criteria. Factors influencing delivery of OPAT were diverse and included child's condition, home environment, child-related factors, parental compliance, training and monitoring. There is little consensus as to what constitutes success of and adverse events in OPAT. Conclusions: Future studies need to clearly define and use success indicators and adverse events in order to provide evidence that paediatric OPAT is safe and effective. Implications: Consensus outcomes that include child and parent perspectives need to be developed to allow a clearer appreciation of a successful paediatric OPAT service.

Objectives Relevant guidelines and consensuses for COVID-19 contain recommendations aimed at optimising the management in paediatric wards. The goal of this study was to determine the quality of those recommendations and provide suggestions to hospital managers for the adjustment of existing hospital prevention and control strategies, and also to offer recommendations for further research. Design A rapid review of the guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards facing COVID-19. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, UpToDate, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database and relevant websites such as medlive.cn, dxy.cn, the National Health and Health Commission and the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention were systematically searched through late May 2020. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was then used to assess the quality of the selected articles and summarise the relevant evidence concerning management in paediatric wards. Results A total of 35 articles were included, composed of 3 consensus guidelines, 25 expert consensuses and 7 expert opinions. Of the 35 papers, 24 were from China, 2 from the USA, 1 from Spain, 1 from Brazil, 1 from Saudi Arabia and 6 from multinational cooperative studies. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) were 98.57%, 53.57%, 17.92%, 69.62%, 26.96% and 50.35%, respectively. Recommendations for nosocomial infection and control, human resource management as well as management of paediatric patients and their families were summarised. Conclusions Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the quality of rapid guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards affected by COVID-19 is unsatisfactory. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more high-quality guidelines or consensuses for the management in paediatric wards to deal with nosocomial outbreaks in order to fully prepare for emergency medical and health problems.

BACKGROUND: The hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be a primary source of transmission of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). Thus, both practising hand hygiene (HH) and adhering to HH guidelines are expected to decrease the risk of transmission. However, there is no consensus on the optimal hand hygiene compliance (HHC) rate for HCWs. AIM: To systematically review the published literature to determine an optimal threshold for the HCW HHC rate associated with the lowest HAI incidence rate. METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Online databases were searched using comprehensive search criteria for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled studies, investigating the impact of the HCW HHC rate on HAI incidence rates in patients of all ages within healthcare facilities in high-income countries. FINDINGS: Of the 8093 article titles and abstracts screened, 35 articles were included in the review. Most studies reported overall HAIs per 1000 patient-days and device-associated HAIs per 1000 device-days. Most studies reported HHC rates between 60% and 70%. Lower HAI incidence rates seemed to be achieved with HHC rates of approximately 60%. The studies included in this review were not originally designed to assess the impact of HHC on HAI incidence rates, but risk of bias was assessed in accordance with the predetermined exposure and outcome criteria. Eleven (31%) studies were deemed to have low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although HHC is part of the HCW code of conduct, very high HHC rates are difficult to reach. In observational studies, HHC and HAIs had a negative relationship up to approximately 60% HHC. Due to flaws in the study design, causality could not be inferred; only general trends could be discussed. Given the limitations, there is a need for high-quality evidence to support the implementation of specified targets for HHC rates.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on primary care throughout Europe and globally. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to ascertain how the pandemic has impacted primary care service provision/patients and to examine strategies to mitigate these impacts. METHODS: The scoping review framework comprised a six-stage process developed by Arksey and O'Malley. The search process was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute three-step search strategy and involved searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library databases. The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A thematic analysis approach by Braun and Clarke was used to interpret the findings. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies from 18 countries and six continents were included, 13 reported original research, three were reviews, and 16 were case reports reporting healthcare systems' experiences of dealing with the pandemic. Emerging themes concerned the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on primary care service provision and patients, the impact of the rapid transition to telemedicine due to COVID-19 on primary care, and strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on primary care (i.e. infection prevention and control measures, alternatives/modifications to traditional service delivery or workflow, government policy responses, and education). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably impacted on primary care at both service and patient levels, and various strategies to mitigate these impacts have been described. Future research examining the pandemic's ongoing impacts on primary care, as well as strategies to mitigate these impacts, is a priority.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' knowledge and expectations may influence prescription of antibiotics. Therefore, providing evidence-based information on cause of symptoms, self-management and treatment is essential. However, providing information during consultations is challenging. Patient information leaflets could facilitate consultations by increasing patients' knowledge, decrease unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics and decrease reconsultations for similar illnesses. Our objective was to systematically review effectiveness of information leaflets used for informing patients about common infections during consultations in general practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating information leaflets on common infections in general practice. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed article quality. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic use and reconsultation rates. RESULTS: Of 2512 unique records, eight studies were eligible (7 randomised, controlled trials, 1 non-randomised study) accounting for 3407 patients. Study quality varied from reasonable to good. Five studies investigated effects of leaflets during consultations for respiratory tract infections; one concerned conjunctivitis, one urinary tract infections and one gastroenteritis and tonsillitis. Three of four studies presented data on antibiotic use and showed significant reductions of prescriptions in leaflet groups with a relative risk (RR) varying from 0.53 (0.40 to 0.69) to 0.96 (0.83 to 1.11). Effects on reconsultation varied widely. One large study showed lower reconsultation rates (RR 0.70 (0.53 to 0.91), two studies showed no effect, and one study showed increased reconsultation rates (RR 1.53 (1.03 to 2.27)). Studies were too heterogenic to perform a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patient information leaflets during general practitioners consultations for common infections are promising tools to reduce antibiotic prescriptions. Results on reconsultation rates for similar symptoms vary, with a tendency toward fewer reconsultations when patients are provided with a leaflet. Use of information leaflets in cases of common infections should be encouraged. Their contributing role in multifaceted interventions targeting management of common infections in primary care needs to further exploration