Stakeholder Perceptions of the School Vaccination Program in Special Schools for Adolescents With Intellectual and Developmental Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) are reported to have lower uptake of routine vaccines than their peers. Little research has explored stakeholders' perceptions and support of school-based vaccinations for this population in NSW, Australia. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups involved in the vaccination program in special education schools in New South Wales, Australia: students with IDD, parents, education staff, and health professionals. RESULTS: Stakeholders mostly supported vaccinating adolescents with IDD in school settings. Students valued the familiar environment and emotional support from teachers. Parents appreciated the convenience and accessibility of the program. Education staff regarded vaccinations as vital for student health and mostly supported school-based delivery but faced practical and ethical challenges, such as insufficient resourcing, confusion around holding students for safety and emotional support, and concerns about losing students' trust in the school as a safe environment if vaccination was experienced as traumatic. Health staff identified a need for better prevaccination communication with families and schools to improve vaccine uptake and student preparation. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight a need for increased support for special schools that act as key program facilitators between those who deliver and those who receive this vital health service.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".