Impact of recruitment strategies on individual participation practices in the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network: prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network conducted a multi-center, prospective vaccine safety study to collect safety data after dose 1 and 2 of COVID-19 vaccines and follow up safety information 7 months after dose 1. Objective: This study aimed to describe and evaluate the recruitment methods used by CANVAS and the retention of participants by each modality. Methods: CANVAS deployed a multi-pronged recruitment approach to reach a larger sample, without in-person recruitment. Three primary recruitment strategies were used: passive recruitment, technology-assisted electronic invitation through the vaccine booking system (auto-invitation), or auto-registration through the vaccine registries (auto-enrollment). Results: Between December 2020 and April 2022, approximately 1.3 million vaccinated adults either self-enrolled or were auto-enrolled in CANVAS, representing about 5% of the vaccinated adult Canadian population. Approximately 1 million participants were auto-enrolled, 300,000 were recruited by auto-invitation, and 5,000 via passive recruitment. Overall survey completion rates for dose 1, dose 2 and the 7-month follow-up surveys were 51.7% (681,198 of 1,318,838), 54.3% (369,552 of 681,198), and 66.4% (452,076 of 681,198), respectively. Completion rates were lower among auto-enrolled participants compared to passively recruited or auto-invited participants who self-enrolled. However, auto-enrolled samples were much larger, which offset the lower completion rates. Conclusion: Our data suggest that auto-enrollment provided an opportunity to reach and retain a larger number of individuals in the study compared to other recruitment modalities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".