Perceived safety, usability, and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination among key populations: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is crucial for public and population health. Microarray patches (MAPs) could enhance vaccine uptake through reduced pain, no needles, improved thermostability and self or lay administration, but there is limited evidence. We aimed to investigate the perceptions of the general public and healthcare professionals (HCPs) aged 18 years and older about MAP vaccination. METHODS: This mixed-methods study was part of a project to validate a scale measuring MAP vaccination's safety, usability, and acceptability. Online surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. 7-point Likert scale items were scaled from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" and analysed using descriptive statistics (e.g., means and confidence intervals (CI)). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In the survey group, 403 general public and 184 HCPs responded. We interviewed 27 participants (12 general public and 15 HCPs). The general public and HCPs perceived MAPs as safe and efficacious, with means of 5.00 (95 % CI: 4.85-5.14) and 4.92 (95 % CI: 4.71-5.12) respectively. The general public (mean = 5.58, 95 % CI: 5.46-5.70) and HCPs (mean = 5.75, 95 % CI: 5.59-5.92) perceived MAPs as usable. Lastly, the general public (mean = 5.49, 95 % CI: 5.37-5.61) and HCPs (mean = 5.30, 95 % CI: 5.12-5.50) perceived MAPs as acceptable. Participants widely perceived MAPs as safe and easy to use due to their 'straightforward' instructions, including for self-administration. All participants regarded MAPs as advantageous for children and needle-phobic individuals. Some HCPs were concerned about possible adverse events at home (i.e., anaphylaxis), but were interested in incorporating MAPs in their clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Microarray patches (MAPs) MAPs are viewed by the general public and HCPs as safe, user-friendly, and well-received as alternatives to needle and syringe vaccination for greater acceptability among consumers. MAPS may also improve access to vaccination in priority populations and areas with limited resources.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".