Perceptions on acceptability of the 2016 WHO ANC model among the pregnant women in Phalombe District, Malawi – a qualitative study using Theoretical Framework of Acceptability

Abstract Background The World Health Organization introduced a new model of care, ‘The 2016 WHO ANC Model’ to overcome challenges encountered during the implementation of the Focused Antenatal Care Approach. For any new intervention to achieve its objective, it must be widely accepted by both the deliverers and recipients. Malawi rolled out the model in 2019 without carrying out acceptability studies. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of pregnant women and health care workers on the acceptability of 2016 WHO’s ANC model in Phalombe District, Malawi using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Methodology We conducted a descriptive qualitative study between May and August 2021. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used to guide the development of study objectives, data collection tools, and data analysis. We purposely conducted 21 in-depth interviews (IDIs) among pregnant women, postnatal mothers, a safe motherhood coordinator, and Antenatal care (ANC) clinic midwives, and two focus group discussions (FGDs) among Disease Control and Surveillance Assistants. All IDIs and FGDs were conducted in Chichewa, digitally recorded, and simultaneously transcribed and translated into English. Data was analysed manually using content analysis. Results The model is acceptable among most pregnant women and they reckoned that it would help reduce maternal and neonatal deaths. Support from a husband, peers, and health care workers facilitated acceptability of the model while the increased number of ANC contacts which resulted in fatigue and increased transportation cost incurred by the women was a deterrent. Conclusion This study has shown that most pregnant women have accepted the model despite facing numerous challenges. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen the enabling factors and address the bottlenecks in the implementation of the model. Furthermore, the model should be widely publicised so that both intervention deliverers and recipients of care implement the model as intended. This will in turn help to achieve the model’s aim of improving maternal and neonatal outcomes and creating a positive experience with health care among pregnant women and adolescent girls. </jats:sec

Family planning knowledge, experiences and reproductive desires among women who had experienced a poor obstetric outcome in Lilongwe Malawi: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Perinatal mortality is unacceptably high in low-income countries, including Malawi. Use of family planning to encourage birth spacing may optimize outcomes for subsequent pregnancies. However, the reproductive desires and family planning knowledge of women who have experienced a stillbirth or neonatal death in resource-poor settings are not well understood. Methods We examined family planning knowledge, contraceptive practices and barrier to contraceptive use among women who had experienced a poor obstetric outcome at Bwaila Hospital in Lilongwe, Malawi. We performed individual in-depth interviews or through focus group discussion with women who had experienced a stillbirth or early neonatal death, 4–8 weeks after their delivery. NVivo software was used to analyze data for recurrent patterns and themes, and central ideas were extracted to identify the data’s core meanings. Results We interviewed 46 women who had experienced a poor obstetric outcome. Overall, women were aware of both modern and traditional family planning methods, and the majority were in favour of modern versus traditional methods. They also had knowledge about risks for future complications if they have a short inter-pregnancy interval. However, they faced conflict about whether to use family planning methods for their health, as suggested by their relatives and friends, or to have another child to fulfil their husband’s desire, especially among those with no living child. Some had fear about side effects, while others were concerned that use of family planning methods without involving the husband could bring misunderstandings within the family. A number of women had misconceptions about family planning methods, which also served as a barrier to their use. Conclusion Although women with a poor obstetric outcome are aware of modern family planning and its health benefits after their delivery, their decision to use a method is complicated by their own desire to protect their own health and the husband’s desire for a child, particularly among those women with no living children coupled with fear of side effects and misconceptions. These findings suggest the importance of counselling both the affected woman and her husband about the benefits of family planning use, even after a poor obstetric outcome, to jointly choose the method they feel comfortable to use and dispel any misconceptions. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02674542

Management practices in facilities providing HIV services to key populations in Kenya and Malawi: A descriptive analysis of management in community-based organizations

HIV services for key populations (KP) at higher risk of HIV infection are often delivered by community-based organizations. To achieve HIV epidemic control, countries need to scale up HIV services for KP. Little is known about the management practices of community-based organizations delivering health services. We explored the management practices and facility characteristics of community-based health facilities providing HIV services to key populations as part of the LINKAGES program in Kenya and Malawi. We collected information on management practices from 45 facilities called drop-in centers (DICs) during US Government FY 2019, adapting the World Management Survey to the HIV community-based health service delivery context. We constructed management domain scores for each facility. We then analyzed the statistical correlations between management domains (performance monitoring, people management, financial management, and community engagement) and facility characteristics (e.g., number of staff, organization maturity, service scale) using ordinary least square models. The lowest mean management domain scores were found for people management in Kenya (38.3) and financial management in Malawi (25.7). The highest mean scores in both countries were for performance monitoring (80.9 in Kenya and 82.2 in Malawi). Within each management domain, there was significant variation across DICs, with the widest ranges in scores (0 to 100) observed for financial management and community involvement. The DIC characteristics we considered explained only a small proportion of the variation in management domain scores across DICs. Community-based health facilities providing HIV services to KP can achieve high levels of management in a context where they receive adequate levels of above-facility support and oversight—even if they deliver complex services, rely heavily on temporary workers and community volunteers, and face significant financial constraints. The variation in scores suggests that some facilities may require more above-facility support and oversight than others

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses

Corrigendum to “Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial” [J Infect 84(6) (2022) 795–813, 5511]

The authors regret that there has been an error published within Fig. 5 of this article. The authors inadvertently pasted the anti-spike plots for the “≥70 years” group instead of the pseudo-neutralising antibody plots (pages 808–809) to Fig. 5A and B. These plots replicate the “≥70 years” group in Fig. 4A and B on pages 806–807. The authors have confirmed that the error does not affect the interpretation of the results and the rest of the paper, and the plots for the “<70 years” group in Fig. 5 are correct. The revised Fig. 5 contains the correct plots for pseudo-neutralising antibody data has now been updated in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose