Combining Influenza and COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Strategy to Improve Vaccination Uptake Necessary for Managing the Health Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines has been significantly low. Therefore, it is questionable whether combining the COVID-19 booster vaccines with Influenza vaccines can increase the population's interest in taking such vaccines and manage the health pandemic effectively. Methodology: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a synthesis of the findings and summary of a total of 30 research articles based on the topic, ‘combining influenza and COVID-19 booster vaccination strategy’ was undertaken. The research articles were identified from three databases, namely, PubMed, Cochran Library, and Google Scholar using specific keywords and inclusion criteria. However, research articles that were not peer-reviewed and not published in English were excluded from the systematic review and meta-analysis. The average risk ratio of the included articles was 0.78% based on a 95% CI. On the other hand, the heterogeneity between such studies was I2 = 35%, while the statistical significance of their findings occurred at p < 0.05. The average p-value of the included research studies was p = 0.62, implying that the null hypothesis was not rejected in almost all the studies. Results: A synthesis of the chosen research articles revealed that when influenza and COVID-19 booster vaccines are combined, there is potential for an increase in the uptake of the latter, mainly because many populations have already been accustomed to taking influenza vaccines on an annual basis. Conclusions: In this way, through such findings, medical health experts can make informed decisions to increase the population's willingness to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccines.
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 | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".