MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413595786 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2025.2550089

A process evaluation of Ontario, Canada’s 2023–24 older-adult RSV vaccination program

2025· article· en· W4413595786 on OpenAlexaffabout
Reed Morrison, Gillian Lim, Christina Renda, Michael Whelan, Allison McGeer, Tara Harris, Sarah E Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioNOSM UniversityToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineImmunization programImmunizationConcordanceFamily medicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthNursingImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory illness in older adults. During the 2023-2024 respiratory season, Ontario was the first and only province in Canada to launch a publicly funded RSV vaccination program for older adults. A process evaluation of the program was completed to better understand the experiences of the local Public Health Units (PHUs) and long-term care homes (LTCHs) implementing the program. Two process evaluation surveys, one each for PHUs and LTCHs, and a separate immunization coverage survey for LTCHs were distributed. The coverage survey found that 58.5% of residents, among all those living in LTCHs responding to the survey, received the RSV vaccine. Process evaluation surveys found that both PHUs and LTCHs perceived the RSV vaccine to be of lower priority than influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. There was also concordance between PHU and LTCH respondents regarding barriers to program implementation, which included temporary guidance against routine co-administration, a detailed informed consent procedure, and the timing of program roll-out. An additional barrier for LTCH respondents was vaccine hesitancy among staff and residents or their substitute decision makers. Facilitators to program implementation were effective communication with program partners, availability of technical resources, and programmatic supports. These evaluation findings are being shared to assist other jurisdictions in their planning of potential older adult or LTCH vaccination programs, including RSV vaccination. An important consideration for future program implementation is how to improve vaccine confidence in LTCH residents and staff in a rapidly changing vaccine landscape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207