IntroductionPublished in 2018, the 5C scale is psychometrically validated to assess five psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation and collective responsibility). The original version offers a validated English and German scale to assess these determinants with a short 5-item scale (1 item per antecedent) and a long 15-item scale (3 items per antecedent). This sample study protocol provides a step-by-step guidance for the process of adapting the 5C scale to another country, language or cultural context. Data obtained from the 5C scale can support developing, implementing and evaluating an intervention and monitoring of general vaccine acceptance and demand.Methods and analysisPhase 1 comprises the adaptation of the 5C scale including the translation and back translation of the antecedents, an expert evaluation of the antecedents and the identification of new antecedents as well as a pretest. Phase 2 involves the validation of the translated and potentially expanded scale including the assessment of reliability, construct and concurrent validity of all items of the scale. Code for data analysis is provided.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Erfurt’s institutional review board provided ethical clearance (EV-201900416.2). The authors suggest and encourage publicly sharing all data obtained from the translated 5C scale (eg, on publication). The materials and the code for data analysis to support the process described in this protocol are available inhttps://osf.io/2agxe/. Sharing data on vaccine acceptance and demand is in the public and the scientific interest and will facilitate gaining a global overview of its current state and development over time. The authors of the original 5C scale are currently working on an online platform to facilitate publishing the data and to visualise the psychological antecedents across different countries.

A selection of 100 Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates from asymptomatic carriers and clinical cases from five regions in northwestern Russia were examined. Six additional isolates from patients in Finland and Estonia with epidemiological links to Russia were also examined. All isolates were characterized by biotyping, toxigenicity testing, ribotyping, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Hybridization of genomic DNA digested with BstEII revealed five ribotype patterns among the biotype gravis isolates (G1 through G5) and two patterns among the biotype mitis isolates (M1 and M2). PFGE using SfiI was not able to distinguish between ribotypes G1, G2, and G4. The predominant ribotype pattern, G1, found in cases of disease in all the areas studied, appears to be disseminating, in view of the isolates received from imported cases in Finland and Estonia. Among the 106 isolates examined, 68 produced pattern G1 and 24 produced pattern M1. Most of the M1 isolates were from the Leningrad Oblast region. Distinct ribotypes such as G2, G3, G4, G5, and M2 could represent endemic disease.

SIAs have made a substantial contribution to the success of measles elimination efforts and will likely remain an important strategy for interrupting measles virus transmission in the European Region, although specific approaches will vary by country.

While global polio eradication requires tremendous efforts in countries where wild polioviruses (WPVs) circulate, numerous outbreaks have occurred following WPV importation into previously polio-free countries. Countries that have interrupted endemic WPV transmission should continue to conduct routine risk assessments and implement mitigation activities to maintain their polio-free status as long as wild poliovirus circulates anywhere in the world. This article reviews the methods used by World Health Organization (WHO) regional offices to qualitatively assess risk of WPV outbreaks following an importation. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of various risk assessment approaches, and opportunities to harmonize approaches. These qualitative assessments broadly categorize risk as high, medium, or low using available national information related to susceptibility, the ability to rapidly detect WPV, and other population or program factors that influence transmission, which the regions characterize using polio vaccination coverage, surveillance data, and other indicators (e.g., sanitation), respectively. Data quality and adequacy represent a challenge in all regions. WHO regions differ with respect to the methods, processes, cut-off values, and weighting used, which limits comparisons of risk assessment results among regions. Ongoing evaluation of indicators within regions and further harmonization of methods between regions are needed to effectively plan risk mitigation activities in a setting of finite resources for funding and continued WPV circulation.

Since 1984, the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region has had targets for reducing the burden of a number of communicable diseases. While some countries have already met the targets for interrupting indigenous measles transmission and for reducing the incidence of congenital rubella syndrome to <1 case per 100,000 births, most have not. The cultural and economic diversity of the region present a number of challenges that must be overcome before the regional targets are met. These include social factors, political will, economic costs associated with supplementary campaigns, and more effective communication with health professionals and the public on the benefits and risks associated with immunization. Most WHO European Region member states are expected to use combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine within the next 5 years. Consultation within the region is occurring on a strategic plan to meet the targets by 2010.