The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster dose vaccination after completing the primary vaccination series for individuals ≥18 years and most-at-risk populations. This study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake and intention to get the booster dose among general populations and healthcare workers (HCWs). We searched PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect according to PRISMA guidelines. From a total of 1079 screened records, 50 studies were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using 48 high-quality studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. Using the 48 included studies, the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among 198,831 subjects was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 75–85%, I2 = 100%). The actual uptake of the booster dose in eight studies involving 12,995 subjects was 31% (95% CI: 19–46%, I2 = 100%), while the intention to have the booster dose of the vaccine was 79% (95% CI: 72–85%, I2 = 100%). The acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58–74%), I2 = 99%). Meta-regression revealed that previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a lower intention to have the booster dose. Conversely, previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a significantly higher level of booster dose actual uptake. Subgroup analyses revealed that the pooled booster dose acceptance in the WHO region of the Americas, which did not include any actual vaccination, was 77% (95% CI: 66–85%, I2 = 100%). The pooled acceptance of the booster dose in the Western Pacific was 89% (95% CI: 84–92%, I2 = 100), followed by the European region: 86% (95% CI: 81–90%, I2 = 99%), the Eastern Mediterranean region: 59% (95% CI: 46–71%, I2 = 99%), and the Southeast Asian region: 52% (95% CI: 43–61%, I2 = 95). Having chronic disease and trust in the vaccine effectiveness were the significant predictors of booster dose COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The global acceptance rate of COVID-19 booster vaccine is high, but the rates vary by region. To achieve herd immunity for the disease, a high level of vaccination acceptance is required. Intensive vaccination campaigns and programs are still needed around the world to raise public awareness regarding the importance of accepting COVID-19 vaccines needed for proper control of the pandemic.

One of the strategies of the World Health Organization End Tuberculosis (TB) was to reduce the catastrophic costs incurred by TB-affected families to 0% by 2020.Catastrophic cost is defined by the total cost related to TB management exceeding 20% of the annual pre-TB household income. This study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of TB affected households who incurred catastrophic costs. We searched PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, ProQuest, SAGE, and Web of Science databases according to Preferred Reporting Items of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines till November 20, 2020. Eligible studies were identified and data on catastrophic costs due to TB were extracted. We performed a meta-analysis to generate the pooled proportion of patients with TB facing catastrophic costs. From 5114 studies identified, 29 articles were included in the final analysis. The pooled proportion of patients faced catastrophic costs was (43%, 95% CI [34–51]). Meta-regression revealed that country, drug sensitivity, and Human immune-deficiency Virus (HIV) co-infection were the main predictors of such costs. Catastrophic costs incurred by drug sensitive, drug resistant, and HIV co-infection were 32%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. The catastrophic costs incurred were lower among active than passive case findings (12% vs. 30%). Half (50%) of TB-affected households faced catastrophic health expenditure at 10% cut-off point. The financial burden of patients seeking TB diagnosis and treatment continues to be a worldwide impediment. Therefore, the End TB approach should rely on socioeconomic support and cost-cutting initiatives.PROSPERO registration: CRD42020221283.

No abstract

Objective The current study aimed to translate the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment tool (AUSDRISK) into the Arabic language and evaluate the reliability and validity of the resultant Arabic version among Egyptians. The AUSDRISK was translated into Arabic language using the World Health Organization (WHO) forward and backward translation protocol. Using the WHO cluster sampling, a sample of 18+ years 719 Egyptians was randomly selected through a population-based household survey. Each participant was interviewed to fill the AUSDRISK Arabic version risk score and undergo confirmatory testing for fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Test-retest reliability and convergent validity were computed. Results Most of the study participants were physically active (60.5%) and females (69.3%). The Arabic version of the AUSDRISK reflected statistically significant perfect positive correlation (r = 1 and p < 0.01) for test re-test reliability as well as a significant moderate positive correlation with each of FPG (r = 0.48, p < 0.01) and OGTT (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) for the criterion-related (convergent) validity. The recalibrated noninvasive AUSDRISK Arabic version proved to be a simple, reliable, and valid predictive tool, and thereof, its employment for opportunistic mass public screening is strongly recommended. This can reduce diabetes mellitus Type 2disease burden and health expenditure.

Background: The presented meta-analysis was developed in response to the publication of several studies addressing COVID-19 vaccines hesitancy. We aimed to identify the proportion of vaccine acceptance and rejection, and factors affecting vaccine hesitancy worldwide especially with the fast emergency approval of vaccines. Methods: Online database search was performed, and relevant studies were included with no language restriction. A meta-analysis was conducted using R software to obtain the random effect model of the pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance and rejection. Egger regression test was performed to assess publication bias. Quality assessment was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. Results: Thirty-nine out of 12246 articles met the predefined inclusion criteria. All studies were cross-sectional designs. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 17% (95% CI: 14-20) while the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 75% (95% CI: 71-79). The vaccine hesitancy and the vaccine acceptance showed high heterogeneity (I 2 =100%). Case fatality ratio and the number of reported cases had significant effect on the vaccine acceptance as the pooled proportion of vaccine acceptance increased by 39.95% (95% CI: 20.1-59.8) for each 1% increase in case fatality (P<0.0001) and decreased by 0.1% (95% CI: -0.2-0.01) for each 1000 reported case of COVID-19, P= 0.0183). Conclusion: Transparency in reporting the number of newly diagnosed COVID-19 cases and deaths is mandatory as these factors are the main determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.