The effectiveness of government spending on higher education.

Master of Commerce in Economics. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville 2015.Governments worldwide spend substantial shares of their budgets on education. This category of expenditure is expected to produce direct benefits for the individuals receiving schooling, as well as indirect benefits to society as whole, since education is known to generate positive externalities. Improvements in education are also associated with economic growth and innovation. Few studies, however, have investigated whether public spending on education is effective at achieving the desired direct outcomes, such as improving enrolment, persistence and completion rates, and ensuring lower repeater and dropout rates. The research conducted in this study looks at the effectiveness of government spending on education. The main objective is to measure the impact that government spending has on all levels of education: primary, secondary and tertiary, for a panel of countries over the period 1990 to 2010. This paper extends previous research since it uses panel data methods and compares how government spending relates to a number of educational outcomes, as defined in previous studies, at the three broad education levels. This study also highlights the differences in the relationships of interest between developed and developing countries. The study uses panel data methods and controls for population age, health, urbanisation and country fixed effects where necessary. Instrumental variable methods are used in an attempt to address the circular causality between public spending and educational outcomes. The analysis shows that government spending is not highly correlated with educational outcomes, defined as enrolment, persistence and repeater rates, on all levels of education. Government spending on higher education appears to be the most effective

South African university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines: A multi-methods study

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used—an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)—targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine’s effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (β = −3.72, 95% CI = −4.39 to −3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (β = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.42 to −0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (β = −2.35, 95% CI = −2.85 to −1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (β = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students

A systematic assessment of preclinical multilaboratory studies and a comparison to single laboratory studies

Multicentric approaches are widely used in clinical trials to assess generalizability of findings, however they are novel in preclinical experimentation. We synthesized characteristics of multilaboratory studies and quantitatively compared them to single laboratory studies. We systematically identified sixteen in vivo interventional multilaboratory studies and matched them to 100 single laboratory studies by intervention and disease. Differences in standardized mean differences (DSMD) were calculated to compare treatment effects based on study design. The multilaboratory study design was applied across a range of diseases (e.g. stroke, diabetes, trauma). The median number of labs was 4 (range 2-6) and the median sample size was 111 (range 23-384). Multilaboratory studies adhered to practices that reduce risk of bias and were transparently reported. These studies demonstrated significantly smaller treatment effects than single lab studies (DSMD 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.43-1]). Preclinical multilaboratory studies demonstrate trends that have been well recognized in clinical research (i.e. smaller treatment effects with greater rigour in study design). This approach may provide a method to robustly assess interventions and reproducibility of findings between laboratories

South African University Staff and Students’ Perspectives, Preferences, and Drivers of Hesitancy Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines : A Multi-Methods Study

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used—an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)—targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine’s effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (β = −3.72, 95% CI = −4.39 to −3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (β = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.42 to −0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (β = −2.35, 95% CI = −2.85 to −1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (β = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students

Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in South Africa

Healthcare workers (HCWs) were the first population group offered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in South Africa because they were considered to be at higher risk of infection and required protecting as they were a critical resource to the health system. In some contexts, vaccine uptake among HCWs has been slow, with several studies citing persistent concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. This study aimed to determine vaccine uptake among HCWs in South Africa whilst identifying what drives vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. We adopted a multimethod approach, utilising both a survey and in-depth interviews amongst a sample of HCWs in South Africa. In a sample of 7763 HCWS, 89% were vaccinated, with hesitancy highest among younger HCWs, males, and those working in the private sector. Among those who were hesitant, consistent with the literature, HCWs raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Examining this further, our data revealed that safety and effectiveness concerns were formed due to first-hand witnessing of patients presenting with side-effects, concern over perceived lack of scientific rigor in developing the vaccine, confidence in the body’s immune system to stave off serious illness, and both a general lack of information and distrust in the available sources of information. This study, through discursive narratives, provides evidence elucidating what drives safety and effectiveness concerns raised by HCWs. These concerns will need to be addressed if HCWs are to effectively communicate and influence public behaviour. HCWs are key role players in the national COVID-19 vaccination programme, making it critical for this workforce to be well trained, knowledgeable, and confident if they are going to improve the uptake of vaccines among the general population in South Africa, which currently remains suboptimal

Examining the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers in South Africa: A mixed-methods study.

This study aimed examin the factors associated with the uptake and non-acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. We used a mixed-methods design with data from a web-based self-administered survey followed by semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) with selected participants. Of the 6235 HCWs included in our analysis who had fully vaccinated, 3470 (56%) had taken their booster dose with a further 17% intending to get the booster. HCWs aged 35 to 49 years (OR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.15-1.46]), and those aged 50 years or older (OR = 2.66 [95% CI: 2.32-3.05]) were more likely to get the booster dose. Females were less likely to have received the booster dose (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79-0.98]) with doctors more likely (OR = 1.58 [95% CI: 1.35-1.84]) than Nurses to have received the booster dose. HCWs in direct contact with patients (OR = 1.17 [95% CI: 1.00-1.38]) and who had previously received a flu vaccine (OR = 1.99 [95% CI: 1.56-2.55]) were more likely to have received the booster dose. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis: (1) Vaccination as routine practice among HCWs; (2) Emergence of new COVID-19 variants necessitating vaccine boosters; (3) Fear of potential side-effects; and (4) Limited value of COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Some HCWs broadly accepted the value of vaccination, and believed that boosters were necessary to effectively combat emergent new virus strains, which contrasted with peers who believed that boosters offered little defence against virus mutations. Fear prohibited some HCWs from getting the booster, with some having experienced adverse side effects from their initial vaccination, whilst others were concerned about future complications. Waning booster uptake rates could be arrested through invigorated communication strategies, while effective evidence-based training can potentially create positive normative vaccination practices amongst HCWs