Unlike most drugs, whose benefit is restricted to the individual who takes the drug, prophylactic vaccines have the potential for far-reaching effects that encompass health service utilisation, general health and wellbeing, cognitive development and, ultimately, economic productivity. The impact of immunisation is measured by evaluating effects directly on the vaccinated individual, indirectly on the unvaccinated community (herd protection), the epidemiology of the pathogen (such as changing circulating serotypes or prevention of epidemic cycles), and the additional benefits arising from improved health. Aside from protection of the individual, the broader success of immunisation is dependent on achieving a level of coverage sufficient to interrupt transmission of the pathogen. When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of vaccines, all of these potential benefits need to be accounted for. In many countries where immunisation programmes have been highly successful, the control of disease has meant that the benefits of immunisation have become less obvious. Once a well-known and much-feared disease appears to have disappeared, individuals, including healthcare professionals, no longer view ongoing prevention with the same sense of urgency. Reduced coverage is inevitably associated with resurgence in disease, with outbreaks potentially leading to significant morbidity and loss of life. Ensuring the continued success of immunisation programmes is the responsibility of all: individuals, healthcare professionals, government and industry.
One of the strategic objectives of the 2011-2020 Global Vaccine Action Plan is for the benefits of immunisation to be equitably extended to all people. This approach encompasses special groups at increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as preterm infants and pregnant women, as well as those with chronic and immune-compromising medical conditions or at increased risk of disease due to immunosenescence. Despite demonstrations of effectiveness and safety, vaccine uptake in these special groups is frequently lower than expected, even in developed countries with vaccination strategies in place. For example, uptake of the influenza vaccine in pregnancy rarely exceeds 50% in developed countries and, although data are scarce, it appears that only half of preterm infants are up-to-date with routine paediatric vaccinations. Many people with chronic medical conditions or who are immunocompromised due to disease or aging are also under-vaccinated. In the US, coverage among people aged 65years or older was 67% for the influenza vaccine in the 2014-2015 season and 55-60% for tetanus and pneumococcal vaccines in 2013, while the coverage rate for herpes zoster vaccination among those aged 60years or older was only 24%. In most other countries, rates are far lower. Reasons for under-vaccination of special groups include fear of adverse outcomes or illness caused by the vaccine, the inconvenience (and in some settings, cost) of vaccination and lack of awareness of the need for vaccination or national recommendations. There is also evidence that healthcare providers' attitudes towards vaccination are among the most important influences on the decision to vaccinate. It is clear that physicians' adherence to recommendations needs to be improved, particularly where patients receive care from multiple subspecialists and receive little or no care from primary care providers.
As the global population ages, there is concern about the effect of an increased proportion of older individuals on the economic sustainability of healthcare systems and the social effects of an older society. Health authorities and advocacy groups in countries at the forefront of this trend are now developing strategies to ameliorate the social and financial effects of an ageing population. There is broad agreement that for both society and for the individuals, it is important to ensure that increasing lifespans are matched with increased "healthspans"the number of years spent in good health. There is also growing consensus that vaccination is one of the tools that can play an important role in improving adult healththough currently vaccination coverage is often poor. This review focuses on two issues that consistently appear to be associated with under-vaccination: the low awareness of risk (and potential consequences) for vaccine-preventable diseases and a poor understanding of the value of improved vaccination coverage for adults. We suggest that understanding of vaccination as a health-promoting activity, rather than a medical intervention designed to prevent the spread of a specific pathogenis a crucial step to improve vaccination uptake among adults (see Supplementary video abstract). KEY MESSAGES As populations age globally, we are seeing an increasing burden of vaccine-preventable disease in adults. Adult vaccination against some common diseases has been shown to dramatically improve health and quality of life for older people. Despite the attested benefits, vaccination coverage is almost always poor in adults, even in countries where access is free at point of care. In this article, we discuss what appears to a neglected issue in adult vaccination, that of personal autonomy. We argue that adult vaccination will only be successful if it respects individual autonomy and that this requires treating the choice to vaccinate as a public health issue akin to smoking cessation, exercise and healthy diet.
BackgroundTo achieve optimal health and oral health, the system of care must place a person and their social well-being at the center of decision making and understand factors spent outside the clinical settings, including individual behavior, context and lifestyle.Main textPerson-centered care offers a unique and compelling opportunity for dentistry, and its practitioners, to improve quality of care and overall health outcomes. For decades, the dominant treatment modalities within dentistry primarily focused on a surgical, treatment-oriented approach as opposed to health promotion and improvement. However, new business and care models are disrupting the dental care system, and transforming it into one that is focused on disease management and prevention-oriented primary care that considers overall health and well-being. We proposed a person-centered care model to improve oral health as an integral part of overall health. The model identified three key players who act as change agents with their respective roles and responsibilities: Person, provider, and health care system designer.ConclusionsWhile previous person-centered models in dentistry focused on the role of providers within the clinical setting, this work emphasizes the role of the care designer in creating an environment where both person and provider are able to communicate effectively and achieve improved health outcomes.
A model of cutaneous leishmaniasis using 10 2 Leishmania major metacyclic promastigotes inoculated into the footpads of genetically resistant C57BL/6 mice was studied in order to more accurately reproduce the evolution of lesion formation and the kinetics of parasite growth and immune response as they might occur in naturally exposed reservoirs and in human hosts. In contrast to the more conventional experimental model employing 10 6 metacyclic promastigotes, in which the rapid development of footpad lesions was associated with an increasing number of amastigotes in the site, the low-dose model revealed a remarkably "silent" phase of parasite growth, lasting approximately 6 weeks, during which peak parasitic loads were established in the absence of any overt pathology. Footpad swelling was observed after 6 weeks, coincident with the onset of parasite clearance and with production of high levels of interleukin-12 (IL-12) and gamma interferon (IFN-␥) in draining lymph nodes. Low-dose challenge of IL-12-and IFN-␥-depleted or -deficient mice provided strong evidence that the induction or expression of cellular immunity is essentially absent during the first 6 to 8 weeks of intracellular growth, since the concentration of amastigotes in the site was not enhanced compared to that for wild-type animals during this time. By monitoring the ability of infected mice to transmit parasites to vector sand flies, it was observed that following low-dose challenge, footpads without apparent lesions provided an efficient source of parasites for exposed flies and that the low-dose challenge actually extended the duration of parasite transmissibility during the course of infection.Leishmania major infection in different inbred mouse strains is a widely used model for the study of Th1 or Th2 responses that control resistance or susceptibility, respectively, to this intracellular parasite (15,30). The resistant C57BL/6 mouse, in particular, is believed to be a relevant model of L. major infections in humans, which are characterized by the development of localized cutaneous lesions that spontaneously heal. The model has been extremely successful in defining the cells, cytokines, and effector molecules involved in acquired resistance, which to date has been shown to require the interleukin-12 (IL-12)-driven activation of Th1 cells for production of high levels of gamma interferon (IFN-␥) which in turn activates leishmanicidal mechanisms in infected macrophages (3,12,16,32,33). In the mouse model, which has typically employed high doses (10 5 to 10 7 ) of promastigotes inoculated subcutaneously into the footpad, the onset of lesion formation, high tissue parasite burden, and immunity is relatively rapid compared to that with natural infection. As a consequence, the model has not been as informative in clarifying the relationships between lesion formation, parasite numbers, and immune response.A model of cutaneous leishmaniasis resulting from low-dose challenge of genetically resistant mice would more closely mimic the evolution of self-...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.