different population groups to ensure public health campaigns remain responsive to community vaccine sentiments. Given the potential impact of vaccine hesitancy on the required population herd immunity threshold, we need to understand the attitudinal and behavioural drivers in order to inform community-led communication strategies to build trust and optimise COVID-19 vaccine uptake.We declare no competing interests.

Governments around the world have implemented measures to manage the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the majority of these measures are proving effective, they have a high social and economic cost, and response strategies are being adjusted. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that communities should have a voice, be informed and engaged, and participate in this transition phase. We propose ten considerations to support this principle: (1) implement a phased approach to a 'new normal'; (2) balance individual rights with the social good; (3) prioritise people at highest risk of negative consequences; (4) provide special support for healthcare workers and care staff; (5) build, strengthen and maintain trust; (6) enlist existing social norms and foster healthy new norms; (7) increase resilience and self-efficacy; (8) use clear and positive language; (9) anticipate and manage misinformation; and (10) engage with media outlets. The transition phase should also be informed by real-time data according to which governmental responses should be updated.

Although vaccination uptake is high in most countries, pockets of sub-optimal coverage remain posing a threat to individual and population immunity. Increasingly, the term 'vaccine hesitancy' is being used by experts and commentators to explain sub-optimal vaccination coverage. We contend that using this term to explain all partial or non-immunisation risks generating solutions that are a poor match for the problem in a particular community or population. We propose more precision in the term 'vaccine hesitancy' is needed particularly since much under-vaccination arises from factors related to access or pragmatics. Only with clear terminology can we begin to understand where the problem lies, measure it accurately and develop appropriate interventions. This will ensure that our interventions have the best chance of success to make vaccines available to those who want them and in helping those who are uncertain about their vaccination decision.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Effective management of group A streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis is hindered by impracticality of the gold standard diagnostic test: throat culture. Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RADTs) are a promising alternative, although concerns about their sensitivity and specificity, and variation between test methodologies, have limited their clinical use. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of RADTs for GAS pharyngitis. METHODS:Medline and Embase from 1996 to 2013 were used as data sources. Of 159 identified studies, 48 studies of diagnostic accuracy of GAS RADTs using throat culture on blood agar as a reference standard were selected. Bivariate random-effects regression was used to estimate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Additional meta-analyses were performed for pediatric data. RESULTS:A total of 60 pairs of sensitivity and specificity from 48 studies were included. Overall summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of RADTs were 0.86 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97), respectively, and estimates for pediatric data were similar. Molecular-based RADTs had the best diagnostic accuracy. Considerable variability exists in methodology between studies. There were insufficient studies to allow meta-regression/subgroup analysis within each test type.CONCLUSIONS: RADTs can be used for accurate diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis to streamline management of sore throat in primary care. RADTs may not require culture backup for negative tests in most low-incidence rheumatic fever settings. Newer molecular tests have the highest sensitivity, but are not true point-of-care tests. ABBREVIATIONS CI-confidence interval ELISA-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay FISH-fluorescence in situ hybridization GAS-group A b-hemolytic streptococcus OIA-optical immunoassay PCR-polymerase chain reaction QUADAS-Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies RADT-rapid antigen diagnostic test ROC-receiver operating characteristics S-ROC-summary receiver operating characteristics Dr. Lean collected data for the study and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Arnup carried out the statistical analyses and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Drs Danchin and Steer conceptualized the study, supervised data collection, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.www.pediatrics.org/cgi

BackgroundThe availability of a COVID-19 vaccine is being heralded as the solution to control the current COVID-19 pandemic, reduce the number of infections and deaths and facilitate resumption of our previous way of life.

Children globally have been profoundly impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. This review explores the direct and indirect public health impacts of COVID‐19 on children. We discuss in detail the transmission dynamics, vaccination strategies and, importantly, the ‘shadow pandemic’, encompassing underappreciated indirect impacts of the pandemic on children. The indirect effects of COVID‐19 will have a long‐term impact beyond the immediate pandemic period. These include the mental health and wellbeing risks, disruption to family income and attendant stressors including increased family violence, delayed medical attention and the critical issue of prolonged loss of face‐to‐face learning in a normal school environment. Amplification of existing inequities and creation of new disadvantage are likely additional sequelae, with children from vulnerable families disproportionately affected. We emphasise the responsibility of paediatricians to advocate on behalf of this vulnerable group to ensure the longer‐term effects of COVID‐19 public health responses on the health and wellbeing of children are fully considered.