Vaccinating Adolescents With Intellectual and Developmental Disability at School: An Opportunity to Promote Supported Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, vaccination rates among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) are lower than those of the general population. Little research has addressed this issue. This study investigates the experiences of vaccinating adolescents with IDD in special education settings in Australia, with a focus on student engagement. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were undertaken with 50 stakeholders involved in the school vaccination program. Data was analyzed thematically using a framework approach. We identified five themes: lack of student engagement, practices discouraging engagement, practices fostering engagement, lack of vaccination protocol adjustments, and lack of disability-specific nurse training. Nurses' limited knowledge and skills in engaging students with IDD can result in unethical practices, students feeling excluded from vaccination decisions, and students being traumatized by negative treatment experiences. Clinical protocols lack guidance and reasonable adjustments to provide inclusive vaccination services. Supported decision making could provide more inclusive school vaccinations, more positive vaccination experiences, and higher vaccination rates among adolescents with IDD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".