MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307009126 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000628

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the uptake of routine maternal and infant vaccines globally: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4307009126 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareUniversity of BristolNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
KeywordsVaccinationMedicinePandemicMEDLINEPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Government (linguistics)Family medicineEnvironmental healthPediatricsImmunologyDiseasePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining routine vaccination coverage is essential to avoid outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. We aimed to understand the international impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on routine vaccination in pregnant women and children aged 0-5-years-old. A systematic review of quantitative and mixed methods studies exploring changes in vaccination coverage, vaccination services, and vaccine confidence since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, World Health Organisation, UK Government Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (including EU and US equivalents), and SAGE Journals were searched between 15-17th June 2021. Selected studies included pregnant women, health professionals, and/or infants aged 0-5-years-old including their parents (population); reported on the Covid-19 pandemic (exposure); presented comparisons with pre-COVID-19 pandemic period (comparator) and reported changes in routine maternal and infant vaccination coverage, services, and confidence (outcomes). Sources published only in non-English language were excluded. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality and risk of bias (ROB), and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021262449). 30 studies were included in the review; data from 20 high-income countries (HICs), seven low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and three regional studies (groups of countries). 18 studies had a low ROB, 12 had a higher risk, however both low and high ROB studies showed similar results. Two studies meeting the inclusion criteria discussed changes in routine vaccinations for pregnant women while 29 studies discussed infants. Both groups experienced declines in vaccination coverage (up to -79%) with larger disruptions in the accessibility and delivery of vaccination services reported within LMICs compared to HICs. Changes in vaccine confidence remained unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in decreased vaccine coverage and reduced routine vaccination services for pregnant women and infants, impacts on vaccine confidence requires more research.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.261 · 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