Validation of the Microarray Patch for Vaccination (MAPVac) scale to measure the perceptions of safety, usability, and acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is a crucial element of public and population health. Microarray patches (MAPs) may improve vaccine uptake due to reduced pain, being needle-free, enhanced thermostability, and potential for self or lay administration. We aimed to validate a scale that measures perceptions of MAP vaccine safety, usability, and acceptability in adults aged 18+. METHODS: This study followed the three phases of scale development and validation. Phase 1 comprised a literature review and key stakeholder cognitive interviews (n = 10) to identify potential and additional scale items. Experts (n = 14) scored the draft scale for face and content validity. In phase 2 further cognitive interviews (n = 27) and exploratory factor analyses determined content validity, informing the addition, adjustment, or deletion of draft items. In phase 3 reliability testing was undertaken by administering two online surveys at least two weeks apart to determine the consistency of participant scores across time and to examine internal consistency. RESULTS: A draft 32-item scale was developed and assessed by experts and key stakeholder cognitive interviews. The final 'MAPVac' scale consisted of 20 items. A total of 206 participants from the general public completed online surveys across Australia and New Zealand (n = 92, 44.7 %), Canada (n = 87, 42.2 %), and the United Kingdom (n = 27, 13.1 %). A four-factor model was determined by exploratory factor analysis, which encompassed general positive attitude questions around MAP vaccination achieving its desired outcome, MAP delivery, self and lay administration, and side effects including perceived discomfort. The MAPVac scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90) and considerable repeatability, with all scale items demonstrating moderate positive correlations at both administrations (Spearman's r = 0.40-0.61). CONCLUSION: The MAPVac scale is a reliable and valid approach to assessing MAP vaccines' social and behavioural aspects. This scale may assist vaccination programs in developing effective strategies for integrating MAPs and overcoming barriers to vaccination.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".