Protocol for a cross-sectional study on COVID-19 vaccination programmes in primary health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An integrated primary health care approach, where primary care and public health efforts are coordinated, is a key feature of routine immunisation campaigns. AIM: The aim of the study is to describe the approach used by a diverse group of international primary health care professionals in delivering their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programmes, as well as their perspectives on public health and primary care integration while implementing national COVID-19 vaccination programmes in their own jurisdictions. SETTING: This is a protocol for a study, which consists of a cross-sectional online survey disseminated among a convenience sample of international primary health care professional through member-based organisations and professional networks via email and online newsletters. METHODS: Survey development followed an iterative validation process with a formative committee developing the survey instrument based on study objectives, existing literature and best practices and a summative committee verifying and validating content. RESULTS: Main outcome measures are vaccination implementation approach (planning, coordination service deliver), level or type of primary care involvement and degree of primary care and public health integration at community level. CONCLUSION: Integrated health systems can lead to a greater impact in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine and can ensure that we are better prepared for crises that threaten human health, not only limited to infectious pandemics but also the rising tide of chronic disease, natural and conflict-driven disasters and climate change.Contribution: This study will provide insight and key learnings for improving vaccination efforts for COVID-19 and possible future pandemics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".