Background In November 2023, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advised the UK government to introduce a targeted, opportunistic vaccination programme using 4CMenB in sexual health services to prevent gonorrhoea primarily in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) at higher risk of infection. Evidence on4CMenB vaccination acceptability was required. Methods Three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 17 GBMSM aged ≥18 years, resident in England, who self-reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection or ≥ 5 sexual partners in the previous 12-months, alongside one FGD with five sexual healthcare professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed using thematic analysis and organised and interpreted using the Vaccine Uptake Continuum and the Social Ecological Model. Results Participating GBMSM and HCPs generally expressed positive perceptions of 4CMenB vaccination. GBMSM described vaccination as supporting sexual wellbeing and reducing anxiety about gonorrhoea. While the estimated effectiveness (30–35%) was perceived as modest, it did not deter acceptability but reduced willingness to actively seek vaccination. Structural constraints (e.g. limited appointment availability) and restrictive eligibility criteria were identified as barriers to equitable uptake. Community-based delivery models were supported as a potential approach to improve access. HCPs drew on mpox vaccination experience to anticipate implementation challenges and emphasised clear guidance and sustainable resourcing. Additional protection against meningitis was generally a secondary influence. Conclusions 4CMenB vaccination for gonorrhoea was acceptable to participating GBMSM and HCPs; however, uptake is likely to depend on ease of access, clear communication, and system-level support. Addressing structural constraints and supporting community-based delivery may help achieve equitable delivery of 4CMenB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: