The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a substantial decline in routine immunisation coverage in children globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study summarises the reasons for disruptions to routine child immunisations in LMICs. A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021286386) was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Scopus and MedRxiv, on 11/02/2022. Observational and qualitative studies published from January 2020 onwards were included if exploring reasons for missed immunisations during the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Study appraisal used National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. Reasons for disruption were defined with descriptive codes; cross-sectional (quantitative) data were summarised as mean percentages of responses weighted by study population, and qualitative data were summarised narratively. A total of thirteen studies were included describing reasons behind disruptions; 7 cross-sectional (quantitative), 5 qualitative and 1 mixed methods. Seventeen reasons for disruptions were identified. In quantitative studies (total respondents = 2,853), the most common reasons identified were fear of COVID-19 and consequential avoidance of health centres (41.2%, SD ±13.3%), followed by transport challenges preventing both families and healthcare professionals from reaching vaccination services (11.1% SD ±16.6%). Most reasons stemmed from reduced healthcare-seeking (83.4%), as opposed to healthcare-delivery issues (15.2%). Qualitative studies showed a more even balance of healthcare-seeking (49.5%) and healthcare-delivery issues (50.5%), with fear of COVID-19 remaining a major identified issue (total respondents = 92). The most common reasons for disruption were parental fear of COVID-19 and avoidance of health services. Health systems must therefore prioritise public health messaging to encourage vaccine uptake and recovery of missed immunisations.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine childhood vaccinations worldwide with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) most affected. This study aims to quantify levels of disruption to routine vaccinations in LMICs.MethodsA systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021286386) was conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Scopus and MedRxiv, on the 11th of February 2022. Primary research studies published from January 2020 onwards were included if they reported levels of routine pediatrics vaccinations before and after March 2020. Study appraisal was performed using NHLBI tool for cross-sectional studies. Levels of disruption were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges.ResultsA total of 39 cross-sectional studies were identified. These showed an overall relative median decline of −10.8% [interquartile range (IQR) −27.6%, −1.4%] across all vaccines. Upper-middle-income countries (upper-MICs) (−14.3%; IQR −24.3%, −2.4%) and lower-MICs (−18.0%; IQR −48.6%, −4.1%) showed greater declines than low-income countries (−3.1%; IQR −12.8%, 2.9%), as did vaccines administered at birth (−11.8%; IQR −27.7%, −3.5%) compared to those given after birth (−8.0%; IQR −28.6%, −0.4%). Declines during the first 3 months of the pandemic (−8.1%; IQR −35.1%, −1.4%) were greater than during the remainder of 2020 (−3.9%; IQR −13.0%, 11.4%) compared to baseline.ConclusionThere has been a decline in routine pediatric vaccination, greatest in MICs and for vaccines administered at birth. Nations must prioritize catch-up programs alongside public health messaging to encourage vaccine uptake.Systematic review registrationIdentifier: CRD42021286386.

No abstract

Introduction Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: ‘What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?’. Methods The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes. Results The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors. Conclusions Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base.

Introduction Imperial College Teddy Bear Hospital (ICSM-TBH) is a student-led volunteering group, which uses interactive, play-based teaching to educate school pupils aged 5–7 years about healthy lifestyles and healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, volunteering sessions shifted online. The aim of this study was to compare the value of online and in-person ICSM-TBH volunteering for volunteers and school pupils. Methods Undergraduate university students at Imperial College London (medicine can be taken as a first degree in the UK) who volunteered with ICSM-TBH between 2019 and 22 were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire evaluating their experiences of volunteering online and in-person through Likert-scale questions. Those who completed the questionnaire were also invited to an interview. Teachers who hosted online ICSM-TBH sessions were also invited to an in-person interview, exploring their view of their pupils’ experiences with these sessions. Questionnaire results were analysed through descriptive statistics. Interviews were analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Results Thirty-two university students completed the questionnaire. Of these, 9 experienced both in-person and online volunteering, all of whom preferred in-person volunteering. For those who only volunteered in-person, 92% reported that ICSM-TBH sessions were a positive experience, compared to 100% who volunteered online; 92% in person volunteers agreed or strongly agreed that ICSM-TBH volunteering in person improved their mood, compared to 89% online; and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that ICSM-TBH volunteering in person helped them feel part of a community, compared to 84% online. A total of 12 volunteers and 4 teachers were interviewed, from whom five themes emerged: interaction and engagement (interaction and engagement between pupils and volunteers was more readily achieved in-person); personal and professional development (both online and in-person sessions enabled volunteers to gain valuable skills); community and social (greater sense of community was established in-person); emotional wellbeing and enjoyment (both modalities were enjoyed by volunteers and pupils); and workload (online sessions were more convenient for volunteers but with risk of screen fatigue). Conclusion Overall, both in-person and online volunteering were of substantial benefit to volunteers and school pupils. However, most teachers and volunteers preferred in-person volunteering.