The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) cohort of the Malawi Longitudinal Study of Families and Health (MLSFH-ACE) is a study of adolescents surveyed during 2017–2021. It provides an important opportunity to examine the longitudinal impact of ACEs on health and development across the early life course. The MLSFH-ACE cohort provides rich data on adolescents, their children and adult caregivers in a low-income, high-HIV-prevalence context in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

The MLSFH-ACE cohort is a population-based study of adolescents living in three districts in rural Malawi. Wave 1 enrolment took place in 2017–2018 and included 2061 adolescents aged 10–16 years and 1438 caregivers. Wave 2 took place in 2021 and included data on 1878 adolescents and 208 offspring. Survey instruments captured ACEs during childhood and adolescence, HIV-related behavioural risk, mental and physical health, cognitive development and education, intimate partner violence (IPV), marriage and aspirations, early transitions to adulthood and protective factors. Biological indicators included HIV, herpes simplex virus and anthropometric measurements.

Key findings include a high prevalence of ACEs among adolescents in Malawi, a low incidence of HIV and positive associations between ACE scores and composite HIV risk scores. There were also strong associations between ACEs and both IPV victimisation and perpetration.

MLSFH-ACE data will be publicly released and will provide a wealth of information on ACEs and adolescent outcomes in low-income, HIV-endemic SSA contexts. Future expansions of the cohort are planned to capture data during early adulthood.

The advanced access model is highly recommended to improve timely access to primary healthcare (PHC). However, its adoption varies among PHC providers. We aim to identify the advanced access profiles of PHC providers.

A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. Latent class analysis (LCA) measures were used to identify PHC provider profiles based on 14 variables, 2 organisational context characteristics (clinical size and geographical area) and 12 advanced access strategies.

All family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses working in the 49 university-affiliated team-based PHC clinics in Quebec, Canada, were invited, of which 35 participated.

The LCA was based on 335 respondents. We determined the optimal number of profiles using statistical criteria (Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion) and qualitatively named each of the six advanced access profiles.

(1) Low supply and demand planification (25%) was characterised by the smallest proportion of strategies used to balance supply and demand. (2) Reactive interprofessional collaboration (25%) was characterised by high collaboration and long opening periods for appointment scheduling. (3) Structured interprofessional collaboration (19%) was characterised by high use of interprofessional team meetings. (4) Small urban delegating practices (13%) was exclusively composed of family physicians and characterised by task delegation to other PHC providers on the team. (5) Comprehensive practices in urban settings (13%) was characterised by including as many services as possible on each visit. (6) Rural agility (4%) was characterised by the highest uptake of advanced access strategies based on flexibility, including adjusting the schedule to demand and having a large number of open-slot appointments available in the next 48 hours.

The different patterns of advanced access strategy adoption confirm the need for training to be tailored to individuals, categories of PHC providers and contexts.

The WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities.

Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations.

This study is approved by the University of Toronto’s Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.