Improving COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Saskatchewan, Canada: A Developmental Evaluation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Developmental Evaluation of a COVID-19 vaccination program was an early response to assess a complex emergent mass vaccination program to support learning and adaptation. Objective The primary objective of a multi-disciplinary team of researcher-evaluators was to facilitate organizational learning among key stakeholders to improve decision-making and increase vaccine uptake in Saskatchewan, Canada. Methods Aligned with the Developmental Evaluation approach, data collection was rooted in adjustment and flexibility to meet the evolving needs of the vaccination program. Data were primarily collected using meeting observations and program documentation. As the program progressed, the data collection was adjusted, and two surveys were conducted targeting COVID-19 vaccine recipients and vaccine immunizers. Data were analyzed iteratively in consultation with stakeholders. Results Nine feedback reports were generated over a nine-month evaluation period. Seven reports highlighted meeting observation results that revealed the program issues, probable causes, and implications. The evolving issues ranged from vaccine shortage, delay, and supply fluctuation to inter-organizational miscommunication and vaccine hesitancy. Two reports were produced from survey findings to delve into the persistent issue of vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion Effective solutions to complex issues of Saskatchewan’s COVID-19 mass immunization require a systems approach based on new ways of thinking and collective decision-making.
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 | 0.023 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".