MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212895022 · doi:10.2196/35066

How Vaccine Ambivalence Can Lead People Who Inject Drugs to Decline COVID-19 Vaccination and Ways This Can Be Addressed: Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W4212895022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian David Aronson, Alex S. Bennett, Mary-Andrée Ardouin-Guerrier, German Rivera-Castellar, Brent E. Gibson, Samantha Santoscoy, Brittney Vargas-Estrella

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVaccinationOutreachMedicineQualitative researchAmbivalenceFamily medicinePsychologySocial psychologyImmunologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs are disproportionately impacted by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, yet they do not frequently accept vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 when offered. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore why people who inject drugs decline free vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and how barriers to vaccination can potentially be addressed. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 17 unvaccinated adult persons who inject drugs during August and September 2021 at a New York City syringe service program, where approximately three-fourth of participants identified as Latino (55%) or African American (22%). Interviews lasted roughly 20 minutes. The interview guide examined reasons for declining vaccination, participants' understanding of COVID-19 risks, and how messages could be developed to encourage vaccine uptake among people who inject drugs. RESULTS: Participants acknowledged that they faced increased risk from SARS-CoV-2 owing to their injection drug use but feared that long-term substance use may have weakened their health, making them especially vulnerable to side effects. Fears of possible side effects, compounded by widespread medical mistrust and questions about the overall value of vaccination contributed to marked ambivalence among our sample. The desire to protect children and older family members emerged as key potential facilitators of vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Community-developed messages are needed in outreach efforts to explain the importance of vaccination, including the far greater dangers of COVID-19 compared to possible unintended side effects. Messages that emphasize vaccines' ability to prevent inadvertently infecting loved ones, may help increase uptake. Community-focused messaging strategies, such as those used to increase HIV and hepatitis C virus testing and overdose prevention among people who inject drugs, may prove similarly effective.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207