MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066255554 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.027

Approved but non-funded vaccines: Accessing individual protection

2013· review· en· W2066255554 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Scheifele, Brian J. Ward, Scott A. Halperin, Shelly McNeil, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Gordean Bjornson

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityToronto Public HealthMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPublic healthMedicineBusinessEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Funded immunization programs are best able to achieve high participation rates, optimal protection of the target population, and indirect protection of others. However, in many countries public funding of approved vaccines can be substantially delayed, limited to a portion of the at-risk population or denied altogether. In these situations, unfunded vaccines are often inaccessible to individuals at risk, allowing potentially avoidable morbidity and mortality to continue to occur. We contend that private access to approved but unfunded vaccines should be reconsidered and encouraged, with recognition that individuals have a prerogative to take advantage of a vaccine of potential benefit to them whether it is publicly funded or not. Moreover, numbers of "approved but unfunded" vaccines are likely to grow because governments will not be able to fund all future vaccines of potential benefit to some citizens. New strategies are needed to better use unfunded vaccines even though the net benefits will fall short of those of funded programs. Canada, after recent delays funding several new vaccine programs, has developed means to encourage private vaccine use. Physicians are required to inform relevant patients about risks and benefits of all recommended vaccines, publicly funded or not. Likewise, some provincial public health departments now recommend and promote both funded and unfunded vaccines. Pharmacists are key players in making unfunded vaccines locally available. Professional organizations are contributing to public and provider education about unfunded vaccines (e.g. herpes zoster, not funded in any province). Vaccine companies are gaining expertise with direct-to-consumer advertising. However, major challenges remain, such as making unfunded vaccines more available to low-income families and overcoming public expectations that all vaccines will be provided cost-free, when many other recommended personal preventive measures are user-pay. The greatest need is to change the widespread perception that approved vaccines should be publicly funded or ignored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207