MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789484758 · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0692-y

Barriers, supports, and effective interventions for uptake of human papillomavirus- and other vaccines within global and Canadian Indigenous peoples: a systematic review protocol

2018· review· en· W2789484758 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly Mrklas, Shannon E. MacDonald, Melissa Shea‐Budgell, Nancy Bedingfield, Heather Ganshorn, Sarah Glaze, Lea Bill, Bonnie Healy, Chyloe Healy, Juliet Guichon, Amy Colquhoun, Christopher Bell, Ruth Richardson, Rita Henderson, James D. Kellner, Cheryl Barnabé, Robert A. Bednarczyk, Angeline Letendre, Gregg Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer FoundationFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaUniversity nuhelot'ine thaiyots'i nistameyimâkanak Blue QuillsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of AlbertaHealth CanadaAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Immunization Research NetworkAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIndigenousVaccinationChecklistPopulationGrey literatureFamily medicineCervical cancerMEDLINEEnvironmental healthNursingImmunologyCancerPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines with demonstrated safety and effectiveness and funded HPV vaccination programs, coverage rates are persistently lower and cervical cancer burden higher among Canadian Indigenous peoples. Barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in Indigenous peoples have not been systematically documented, nor have interventions to increase uptake in this population. This protocol aims to appraise the literature in Canadian and global Indigenous peoples, relating to documented barriers and supports to vaccination and interventions to increase acceptability/uptake or reduce hesitancy of vaccination. Although HPV vaccination is the primary focus, we anticipate only a small number of relevant studies to emerge from the search and will, therefore, employ a broad search strategy to capture literature related to both HPV vaccination and vaccination in general in global Indigenous peoples. METHODS: Eligible studies will include global Indigenous peoples and discuss barriers or supports and/or interventions to improve uptake or to reduce hesitancy, for the HPV vaccine and/or other vaccines. Primary outcomes are documented barriers or supports or interventions. All study designs meeting inclusion criteria will be considered, without restricting by language, location, or data type. We will use an a priori search strategy, comprised of key words and controlled vocabulary terms, developed in consultation with an academic librarian, and reviewed by a second academic librarian using the PRESS checklist. We will search several electronic databases from date of inception, without restrictions. A pre-defined group of global Indigenous websites will be reviewed for relevant gray literature. Bibliographic searches will be conducted for all included studies to identify relevant reviews. Data analysis will include an inductive, qualitative, thematic synthesis and a quantitative analysis of measured barriers and supports, as well as a descriptive synthesis and quantitative summary of measures for interventions. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study will contribute the first systematic review of documented barriers, supports, and interventions for vaccination in general and for HPV vaccination. The results of this study are expected to inform future research, policies, programs, and community-driven initiatives to enhance acceptability and uptake of HPV vaccination among Indigenous peoples. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017048844.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207