Engaging Canadians in evidence-based communication about vaccines: a scoping review protocol of immunisation support programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify, characterise and map the existing knowledge about (1) immunisation programmes that provide evidence-based support about vaccines to Canadians and reduce barriers to vaccination; and (2) barriers and facilitators to the delivery of immunisation support programmes. INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that has significant repercussions for the health and safety of Canadians. Engaging in evidence-based communication about vaccines can reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase participation in immunisation programmes. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews will be used for this scoping review. A comprehensive keyword search strategy was developed and translated for six electronic databases on 19 November 2021: CINAHL via EBSCOhost, APA PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, Academic Search Complete via EBSCOhost, Scopus, Medline via EBSCOhost and EmCare via Ovid. We will identify unpublished literature by searching websites listed in CADTH's Grey Matters checklist and other relevant sources in January 2022. Two independent raters will screen and extract data from identified material. Data will be presented in a tabular form. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will consider Canadian programmes that target the general public and exclude papers targeting health professionals. Our review will not limit by vaccine type and will consider any intervention that aims to inform individuals about immunisation. Our primary concept involves mapping the characteristics of programmes (eg, programme description, delivery format) and our secondary concept will examine barriers and facilitators to programme delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this study is a review of the published and publicly reported literature. Findings from this review will be disseminated to academic and health system stakeholders to inform immunisation programmes across a wide range of vaccine types and settings. We intend to use the results of this review to develop an immunisation support programme in Prince Edward Island, Canada.
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 | 0.110 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.007 |
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".