Although vaccinating the world is adopted by the WHO to limit COVID-19 transmission, people’s worries about vaccines may suppress their desire for vaccination despite vaccine availability. This study aimed to evaluate the levels of stress and anxiety among 250 Jordanians who received their first vaccine dose at a local community health center. The respondents completed the stress and anxiety subscales of the Depression Anxiety and Stress scale 21 (DASS-21) pre- and post-vaccination. The respondents expressed more moderate-severe levels of stress pre than post vaccination (20.8% and 13.2%, respectively). Meanwhile, 37.2% and 45.2% of the respondents expressed moderate-severe anxiety pre and post vaccination, respectively. Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that the drop in the level of stress from pre (median (IQR) = 5 (1-8)) to post vaccination (median (IQR) = 3 (1-7)) was statistically significant (z = -3.81, p = 0.001, r = 0.17) while the increase in anxiety was not. Anxiety median significantly dropped among individuals experiencing mild to severe anxiety pre vaccination. Similarly, stress and anxiety significantly increased among individuals expressing normal anxiety pre vaccination (z = -3.57 and -8.24, p values = 0.001, r = 0.16 and 0.37, respectively). Age positively correlated with post vaccination anxiety among respondents with mild pre vaccination anxiety, and it negatively correlated with pre vaccination level of stress in the normal anxiety group. Gender, marital status, respondents’ level of education, and history of COVID-19 infection had no significant correlation with anxiety or stress at either point of measurement. Overcoming their hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccine, individuals with normal levels of anxiety experienced a rise in their distress symptoms following immunization. On the contrary, vaccination seemed to desensitize anxious individuals. Policymakers need to formulate a population-specific plan to increase vaccine preparedness and promote psychological well-being over all during the pandemic.

Improving HIV testing efficiency saves financial and material resources for health. We conducted a retrospective secondary data analysis of routinely collected HIV risk screening program data in Uganda, from October to November 2019, to determine the performance characteristics of the adolescent and adult HIV risk screening tool in public health facility settings. A total of 19,854 clients had been screened for HIV testing eligibility and tested for HIV. The overall positivity rate (cluster weighted prevalence of HIV) among those screened was 4.5% (95% CI: 4.1%-4.8%) versus 3.71% (95% CI: 3.06-4.50) among those not screened. The sensitivity and specificity of the risk screening tool were 90.7% (95% CI: 88.4%, 92.7%) and 75.8%, (75.2-76.4) respectively. With screening, the number needed to test to identify one PLHIV was reduced from 27 to 22. Although risk screening would have led to a 24.5% (4,825/19,704) reduction in testing volume, 9.3% (68/732) of PLHIV would have been missed, being misclassified as not eligible for testing. The cost per PLHIV identified fell by 3% from $69 without screening to $66.9 with screening. We recommend the use of scientifically validated HIV risk screening tools, and a need to explore the use of HIV self-testing as a test for tirage.