MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388938930 · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10334-9

Public willingness to receive chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and trichomoniasis vaccines: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4388938930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Valleroy, Colin Garon, Janamarie Perroud, Abram L. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGonorrheaTrichomoniasisMedicineChlamydiaSyphilisPublic healthGenital wartsFamily medicineEnvironmental healthReproductive healthGynecologyImmunologyPopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and trichomoniasis contribute significantly to global morbidity and mortality. Researchers are pursuing vaccines for these STIs, and a clinical trial is currently underway for a chlamydia vaccine. However, there is little research available on individuals' willingness to receive chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and trichomoniasis vaccines. The purpose of this analysis was to map the existing literature we have on individuals' willingness to receive these bacterial/parasitic STI vaccines and understand what information on vaccine acceptability is still needed. METHODS: We searched seven databases for literature on STI vaccine acceptability, then conducted title/abstract and full-text reviews to assess eligibility. All reviews and abstractions were conducted blindly by two reviewers, with discrepancies settled by discussion or the input of a third reviewer. RESULTS: Eight of the original 2,259 texts of interest met inclusion criteria. After data abstraction, we found that gonorrhea was the most commonly examined, followed by chlamydia and syphilis. Trichomoniasis vaccine acceptability was not reported. Most texts reported high acceptability, but there did not appear to be data describing how vaccine characteristics affect acceptability. Similarly, while the literature covers a variety of populations, most of the study populations were based out of the United States or Canada and were patrons of healthcare facilities or participants from a larger health intervention study. Therefore, more information is needed on populations outside North America, and on groups with lower healthcare access and utilization. CONCLUSION: As the incidence of bacterial and parasitic STIs increase, and as we grow nearer vaccines for these illnesses, understanding how likely the public is to accept and receive these vaccines is crucial to their success. While the existing literature describes STI vaccine acceptability in a variety of populations, their overall number is small. More research into STI vaccine acceptability outside of North America, and especially examining how factors like number of doses, timing, and cost influence vaccine acceptability is needed to ensure effective future vaccine rollouts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.250
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207