What do adolescents think about vaccines? Systematic review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence presents a key opportunity to build vaccine-related health literacy and promote vaccine confidence and uptake. Although adolescents are central to vaccination programs, their views around vaccines are frequently underrepresented in qualitative literature. We reviewed qualitative studies to systematically identify and summarize existing evidence on adolescents' own understanding of vaccines and experiences with vaccine decision-making, including self-consent when applicable. CINAHL; Embase; Ovid Medline; and Psych Info database searches were last updated on May 28, 2022. Data pertaining to general study characteristics, participant demographics, and qualitative content were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed using textual narrative synthesis. Out of 3559 individual records, 59 studies were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and 75% focused on human papilloma virus vaccines, with the remaining studies looking at COVID-19, meningococcal, hepatitis B and influenza vaccines or adolescent experiences with vaccines in general. Adolescent self-consent was explored in 7 studies. Perspectives from sexual and gender minorities were lacking across studies. Adolescents often had limited understanding of different vaccines and commonly perceived vaccine information to be directed towards their parents rather than themselves. Many adolescents felt school-based vaccine education and information available through healthcare providers were insufficient to make informed decisions about vaccines. While adolescents described obtaining vaccine information from traditional and online media, face-to-face interactions and opinions from trusted adults remained important. Adolescents generally relied on their parents for vaccine-decision making, even when self-consent was an option. A notable exception to this included marginalized adolescents who could not rely on parents for health-related advice. Qualitative literature about adolescent vaccines would be enriched by studies examining vaccines other than the HPV vaccine, studies examining adolescent vaccine programs in low and middle-income countries, and by deliberately eliciting vaccine experiences of adolescent with diverse sexual orientation and gender identities.
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 | 0.060 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".