MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393950262 · doi:10.2196/47241

Perspectives of European Patient Advocacy Groups on Volunteer Registries and Vaccine Trials: VACCELERATE Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4393950262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sophia Themistocleous, Christos D. Argyropoulos, Paris Vogazianos, George Shiamakkides, Evgenia Noula, Andria Nearchou, Andreas Yiallouris, Charalampos Filippou, Fiona Stewart, Markela Koniordou, Ioannis Kopsidas, Helena Hervius Askling, Sirkka Vene, Amandine Gagneux‐Brunon, Jana Baranda, Elena Álvarez, Jon Salmanton‐García, Janina Leckler, Alan Macken, Ruth Joanna Davis, Anna Maria Azzini, Charis Armeftis, Margot Hellemans, Romina Di Marzo, Catarina Luís, Ole F. Olesen, Olena Valdenmaiier, Stine Finne Jakobsen, Pontus Nauclér, Odile Launay, Patrick Mallon, Jordi Ochando, Pierre Van Damme, Evelina Tacconelli, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Oliver A. Cornely, Zoi Dorothea Pana

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily medicineClinical trialGermanEuropean unionInclusion (mineral)MedicineEquity (law)PsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The VACCELERATE Pan-European Scientific network aims to strengthen the foundation of vaccine trial research across Europe by following the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry network provides access to vaccine trial sites across the European region and supports a sustainable volunteer platform for identifying potential participants for forthcoming vaccine clinical research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to approach members of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) across Europe to assess their willingness to register for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry and their perspectives related to participating in vaccine trials. METHODS: In an effort to understand how to increase recruitment for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, a standardized survey was developed in English and translated into 8 different languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish) by the respective National Coordinator team. The online, anonymous survey was circulated, from March 2022 to May 2022, to PAGs across 10 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) to share with their members. The questionnaire constituted of multiple choice and open-ended questions evaluating information regarding participants' perceptions on participating in vaccine trials and their willingness to become involved in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry. RESULTS: In total, 520 responses were collected and analyzed. The PAG members reported that the principal criteria influencing their decision to participate in clinical trials overall are (1) the risks involved, (2) the benefits that will be gained from their potential participation, and (3) the quality and quantity of information provided regarding the trial. The survey revealed that, out of the 520 respondents, 133 individuals across all age groups were "positive" toward registering in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, with an additional 47 individuals reporting being "very positive." Respondents from Northern European countries were 1.725 (95% CI 1.206-2.468) times more likely to be willing to participate in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry than respondents from Southern European countries. CONCLUSIONS: Factors discouraging participants from joining vaccine trial registries or clinical trials primarily include concerns of the safety of novel vaccines and a lack of trust in those involved in vaccine development. These outcomes aid in identifying issues and setbacks in present registries, providing the VACCELERATE network with feedback on how to potentially increase participation and enrollment in trials across Europe. Development of European health communication strategies among diverse public communities, especially via PAGs, is the key for increasing patients' willingness to participate in clinical studies.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207