MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6977258956 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21364752

COVID-19 vaccination delivery in long-term-care using the CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) system: Mixed methods study of implementation drivers

2022· article· en· W6977258956 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences NorthUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionVaccinationImplementation researchReactogenicityQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)PerceptionHealth services research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CARD (comfort, ask, relax, distract) is a vaccine delivery framework that includes interventions to improve the patient’s experience. CARD has not been previously implemented in long-term care (LTC) settings. This study evaluated drivers to implementation for COVID-19 vaccinations in an LTC facility. Postimplementation interpretive evaluation including qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys with eight participants. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for analysis. Adverse reactions to vaccinations and CARD interventions, including local reactogenicity and systemic reactions, were abstracted from medical charts of residents. Eight CFIR constructs emerged. Staff perceived CARD was complex because it added steps to vaccination delivery. Motivated to meet residents’ needs, a receptive implementation climate of support among staff led to using strategies within CARD, such as administering topical anesthetics and omitting alcohol skin antisepsis prior to injections. Having an effective network like the residents council positively influenced implementation by allowing residents to voice their opinions. Facilitators to implementation included staff knowledge and beliefs and staff’s commitment to their organization, which was focused on person-centered care. Barriers included lack of available resources (inadequate staffing), insufficient communication between management and staff and lack of awareness of CARD, and external policies not aligned with CARD. Chart reviews conducted for 93 vaccinated residents corroborated perceptions of vaccination and CARD intervention safety, revealing a low rate of local and systemic adverse reactions and no cases of skin infection. We identified positive and negative implementation drivers. Future research is recommended to expand the strategies employed and involve residents more directly.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.539
GPT teacher head0.671
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→