Safety, Usability, and Acceptability of Microarray Patches for Vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Microarray patches (MAPs) are a needle-free vaccine delivery device that targets the epidermis and upper dermis. This thesis aimed to investigate the safety, usability, and acceptability of MAPs for vaccination among older adults, the general public, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A review was conducted to assess the immunogenicity, safety, usability, and acceptability of MAPs. Semi-structured interviews with older adults explored MAP benefits and challenges. The MAP for Vaccination Scale (MAPVac) was developed through literature reviews, expert assessments, and interviews to evaluate perceptions of MAP safety, usability, and acceptability. Surveys were administered in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Descriptive statistics were used for survey analysis, and thematic analysis was applied to interview data. Results: Clinical trials with influenza and Japanese encephalitis vaccines demonstrated that MAPs were immunogenic, with mild erythema as the only reported side effect. Pain scores were lower for MAPs compared to needle and syringe (N&S). In interviews with older adults (n=44), MAPs were viewed as convenient due to their ease of use, with potential to reduce healthcare burden. Concerns included the safety of unsupervised use and immunisation recording accuracy. The MAPVac scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.90) and repeatability. Survey results from 403 members of the general public and 184 HCPs indicated that MAPs were considered safe, usable, and acceptable. Thematic analysis of interviews (n=27) revealed that MAPs were beneficial for individuals with needle-related anxiety, and HCPs showed interest in using MAPs in practice. Conclusion: MAPs were generally found to be safe, effective, and user-friendly alternatives to N&S. The availability and accessibility of vaccine MAPs could enhance vaccination rates among key populations and those in low-resource settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".