MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391047280 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-17724-6

Acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and capacity of a facility-based seasonal influenza vaccination among high-risk groups: a study protocol in selected tertiary care hospitals of Bangladesh

2024· article· en· W4391047280 on OpenAlexaff
Md Zakiul Hassan, Md Abdullah Al Jubayer Biswas, Mahbubur Rahman, Homayra Rahman Shoshi, Ashrak Shad Pyash, Md. Ariful Islam, Md Azizul Haque, Syeda Rukhshana Parvin, Md. Tanvir Hossen, Mofakhar Hussain, Mahmudur Rahman, Tahmina Shirin, Fahmida Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationPublic healthEnvironmental healthBiostatisticsHealth careSeasonal influenzaDisease burdenPopulationFamily medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)ImmunologyNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Bangladesh, seasonal influenza imposes considerable disease and economic burden, especially for those at high-risk of severe disease. The most successful approach for influenza prevention is the administration of a vaccine. Many poor and middle-income nations, including Bangladesh, do not have a national strategy or program in place for seasonal influenza vaccines, despite the World Health Organization's (WHO) advice to prioritize high-risk populations. Additionally, there is a scarcity of substantial data on the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in these countries. The aim of our study is to determine acceptability, health beliefs, barriers, and intention of receiving influenza vaccine among high-risk populations, assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing a facility-based seasonal influenza vaccination programme, and investigate the required capacity for a potential seasonal influenza vaccination programme. METHODS: We will undertake this study following STROBE guidelines. We will conduct the study in inpatient and outpatient departments of three selected tertiary-level hospitals leveraging the ongoing hospital-based influenza surveillance (HBIS) platform. The study population will include the WHO-defined four high-risk groups excluding healthcare workers: children six months to eight years, pregnant women, elderly ≥ 60 years, and adults with chronic diseases. We will collect quantitative data on participants' acceptability, health beliefs, barriers, and vaccination intentions using the health belief model (HBM) from patients meeting the criteria for high-risk populations attending two public tertiary-level hospitals. In one of the two public tertiary-level hospitals, we will arrange an influenza vaccination campaign before the influenza season, where the vaccine will be offered free of cost to high-risk patients, and in the second hospital, vaccination will not be offered. Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated participants will then be followed-up once a month for one year to record any influenza-like illness, hospitalization, and death. Additional data for objective two will be collected from patients with symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) at one public and one private hospital to determine both direct and indirect costs associated with influenza illness. We will estimate the required number of influenza vaccines, safe injections, and total storage volume utilizing secondary data. We will use a deterministic Markov decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of facility-based influenza vaccination in Bangladesh. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will enable the National Immunization Technical Advisory Group and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of Bangladesh to decide what steps to take to develop and implement an influenza vaccination strategy targeting high-risk populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number is NCT05996549. The registration for the protocol version 2.0 took place in August 2023, with the initial participant being enrolled in March 2022.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→