Background COVID-19 vaccines are available for adolescents in the United States, but many parents are hesitant to have their children vaccinated. The advice of primary care professionals strongly influences vaccine uptake. Objective We examined the willingness of primary care professionals (PCPs) to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents. Methods Participants were a national sample of 1,047 US adolescent primary care professionals. They participated in an online survey in early 2021, after a COVID-19 vaccine had been approved for adults but before approval for adolescents. Respondents included physicians (71%), advanced practice providers (17%), and nurses (12%). We identified correlates of willingness to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents using logistic regression. Results The majority (89%) of respondents were willing to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, with advanced practice providers and nurses being less likely than paediatricians to recommend vaccination (84% vs. 94%, aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23–0.92). Respondents who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to recommend adolescent vaccination (92% vs. 69%, aOR 4.20, 95% CI 2.56–6.87) as were those with more years in practice (94% vs. 88%, aOR 2.93, 95% CI 1.79–4.99). Most respondents (96%) said they would need some measure of support in order to provide COVID-19 vaccination to adolescents, with vaccine safety and efficacy information being the most commonly cited need (80%). Conclusion Adolescent primary care professionals were generally willing to recommend COVID-19 vaccination. However, most indicated a need for additional resources to be able to administer COVID-19 vaccines at their clinic.

Malaria programs rely upon a variety of diagnostic assays, including rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), microscopy, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and bead-based immunoassays (BBA), to monitor malaria prevalence and support control and elimination efforts. Data comparing these assays are limited, especially from high-burden countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Using cross-sectional and routine data, we compared diagnostic performance andPlasmodium falciparum prevalence estimates across health areas of varying transmission intensity to illustrate the relevance of assay performance to malaria control programs. Data and samples were collected between March-June 2018 during a cross-sectional household survey across three health areas with low, moderate, and high transmission intensities within two health zones of Kinshasa province, DRC. Samples from 1,431 participants were evaluated using RDT, microscopy, PCR, and BBA.P. falciparumparasite prevalence varied between diagnostic methods across all health areas, with the highest prevalence estimates observed in Bu (57.4-72.4% across assays), followed by Kimpoko (32.6-53.2%), and Voix du Peuple (3.1-8.4%). Using latent class analysis to compare these diagnostic methods against an “alloyed gold standard,” the most sensitive diagnostic method was BBA in Bu (high prevalence) and Voix du Peuple (low prevalence), while PCR diagnosis was most sensitive in Kimpoko (moderate prevalence). RDTs were consistently the most specific diagnostic method in all health areas. Among 9.0 million people residing in Kinshasa Province in 2018, the estimatedP. falciparum prevalence by microscopy, PCR, and BBA were nearly double that of RDT. Comparison of malaria RDT, microscopy, PCR, and BBA results confirmed differences in sensitivity and specificity that varied by endemicity, with PCR and BBA performing best for detecting anyP. falciparuminfection. Prevalence estimates varied widely depending on assay type for parasite detection. Inherent differences in assay performance should be carefully considered when using community survey and surveillance data to guide policy decisions.

Malaria programs rely upon a variety of diagnostic assays, including rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), microscopy, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and bead-based immunoassays (BBA), to monitor malaria prevalence and support control and elimination efforts. Data comparing these assays are limited, especially from high-burden countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Using cross-sectional and routine data, we compared diagnostic performance and Plasmodium falciparum prevalence estimates across health areas of varying transmission intensity to illustrate the relevance of assay performance to malaria control programs. Data and samples were collected between March–June 2018 during a cross-sectional household survey across three health areas with low, moderate, and high transmission intensities within Kinshasa Province, DRC. Samples from 1,431 participants were evaluated using RDT, microscopy, PCR, and BBA. P. falciparum parasite prevalence varied between diagnostic methods across all health areas, with the highest prevalence estimates observed in Bu (57.4–72.4% across assays), followed by Kimpoko (32.6–53.2%), and Voix du Peuple (3.1–8.4%). Using latent class analysis to compare these diagnostic methods against an “alloyed gold standard,” the most sensitive diagnostic method was BBA in Bu (high prevalence) and Voix du Peuple (low prevalence), while PCR diagnosis was most sensitive in Kimpoko (moderate prevalence). RDTs were consistently the most specific diagnostic method in all health areas. Among 9.0 million people residing in Kinshasa Province in 2018, the estimated P. falciparum prevalence by microscopy, PCR, and BBA were nearly double that of RDT. Comparison of malaria RDT, microscopy, PCR, and BBA results confirmed differences in sensitivity and specificity that varied by endemicity, with PCR and BBA performing best for detecting any P. falciparum infection. Prevalence estimates varied widely depending on assay type for parasite detection. Inherent differences in assay performance should be carefully considered when using community survey and surveillance data to guide policy decisions.