Successful implementation of a combined pneumococcal and influenza vaccination program in a Canadian emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of patients vaccinated with pneumococcal (PVAX) and influenza (IVAX) vaccines under an emergency department (ED) vaccination program, that would not otherwise have been vaccinated by other primary care resources. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary care academic centre. A questionnaire was administered to all consenting ED patients who met screening eligibility criteria to receive either IVAX or PVAX. Eligible unvaccinated patients who did not plan on receiving vaccination elsewhere were offered one or both of the vaccines and, if agreeable, were immunized in the ED. RESULTS: During the 4-week study period, 754 patients (36% of all presenting ED patients) were eligible for vaccination with one or both vaccines. Of these 525 (70%) consented to participate in the study and completed a questionnaire. Of the 525 participants, 289 (55% of IVAX eligible patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-59%) were unvaccinated against influenza that year and did not plan on being vaccinated elsewhere and 277 (60% of PVAX eligible patients; 95% CI, 56%-64%) were unvaccinated against pneumococcus and did not plan on being vaccinated elsewhere. IVAX was administered to 187 patients (65% penetration; 95% CI, 59%-70%), and PVAX was administered to 165 patients (60% penetration; 95% CI, 54%-65%). Overall vaccine penetration was 46% (95% CI, 42%-50%) in the study participants and 32% (95% CI, 29%-35%) for the entire ED screened and eligible group. Reasons for vaccination refusal included concerns about benefit, side effects, and the desire to discuss vaccination with their primary care physician. CONCLUSIONS: An ED-based program can result in the vaccination of a significant proportion of patients eligible for IVAX and/or PVAX who would otherwise likely go unprotected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".