BMJ global health · 2025
Acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine alongside existing malaria interventions in the trial context.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diawara Halimatou, Grant Jane, Dicko Alassane, Traore Seydou, Issiaka Djibrilla, Koita Fatoumata, Datoo Mehreen, Sylla Mala, Dicko Abdrahmane Boncane, Sagara Issaka, Chandramohan Daniel, Hill Adrian Vs, Greenwood Brian, Webster Jayne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine has been shown to provide high protective efficacy against malaria in a phase III trial, and has been recommended for use by WHO. The vaccine will soon be deployed at scale in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to understand the caregiver and community acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine alongside existing malaria prevention interventions, according to the communities of participants in the seasonal R21/Matrix-M phase III trial in Mali.
METHODS: Qualitative data were collected to assess the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine alongside the three R21/Matrix-M or control vaccine priming injections given in the first year of the trial. A total of 33 in-depth interviews (IDIs), 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 45 exit interviews at the trial clinics were conducted with caregivers of trial participants, 18 IDIs and 8 FGDs were conducted with community members, 13 IDIs with community health workers and 8 IDIs with trial field staff. Data were coded using the constructs from Sekhon's theoretical framework on acceptability.
RESULTS: Acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine was driven mainly by the high burden of malaria in the highly seasonal study area and consequent demand for a malaria vaccine, a perceived high efficacy of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine, and a high level of trust and confidence in the trial and trial team. These perceptions of the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine led to a reduced perceived importance of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) among some caregivers, while others viewed R21/Matrix-M, SMC and insecticide-treated nets as complementary.
CONCLUSIONS: The R21/Matrix-M vaccine was acceptable to caregivers and communities of participants in the R21/Matrix-M phase III trial in Mali. Implementation research is needed to evaluate and ensure co-coverage of complementary malaria control interventions, including SMC in seasonal settings, in the face of the scale-up of R21/Matrix-M and other malaria vaccines.
METHODS: Qualitative data were collected to assess the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine alongside the three R21/Matrix-M or control vaccine priming injections given in the first year of the trial. A total of 33 in-depth interviews (IDIs), 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 45 exit interviews at the trial clinics were conducted with caregivers of trial participants, 18 IDIs and 8 FGDs were conducted with community members, 13 IDIs with community health workers and 8 IDIs with trial field staff. Data were coded using the constructs from Sekhon's theoretical framework on acceptability.
RESULTS: Acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine was driven mainly by the high burden of malaria in the highly seasonal study area and consequent demand for a malaria vaccine, a perceived high efficacy of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine, and a high level of trust and confidence in the trial and trial team. These perceptions of the acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M vaccine led to a reduced perceived importance of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) among some caregivers, while others viewed R21/Matrix-M, SMC and insecticide-treated nets as complementary.
CONCLUSIONS: The R21/Matrix-M vaccine was acceptable to caregivers and communities of participants in the R21/Matrix-M phase III trial in Mali. Implementation research is needed to evaluate and ensure co-coverage of complementary malaria control interventions, including SMC in seasonal settings, in the face of the scale-up of R21/Matrix-M and other malaria vaccines.