MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126986239

Safety, Usability, and Acceptability of Microarray Patches for Vaccination

2025· dissertation· en· W7126986239 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Neil Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisVaccinationScale (ratio)Health careDescriptive statisticsPerceptionThematic mapImmunization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney)Same topicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207