ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2022
Challenges and opportunities in current vaccine technology and administration: A comprehensive survey examining oral vaccine potential in the United States.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel oral vaccine delivery system for enhancing stability and immune protection: bacterium-like particle with functional coating.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study provides a snapshot of the current vaccine business ecosystem, including practices, challenges, beliefs, and expectations of vaccine providers. Our team focused on providers' firsthand experience with administering vaccines to determine if an oral vaccine (e.g. pill or oral-drop) would be well-received. We interviewed 135 healthcare providers and vaccine specialists across the US, focusing questions on routine vaccinations, not COVID-19 vaccines. Improving workflow efficiency is a top concern among vaccine providers due to shrinking reimbursement rates-determined by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-and the time-intensiveness of injectable vaccines. Administering injectable vaccines takes 23 minutes/patient on average, while dispensing pills takes only 5 minutes/patient. An average of 24% of patients express needle-fear, which further lengthens the processing time. Misaligned incentives between providers and PBMs could reduce the quality and availability of vaccine-related care. The unavailability of single-dose orders prevents some rural providers from offering certain vaccines. Most interviewees (74%) believe an oral vaccine would improve patient-provider experience, patient-compliance, and workflow efficiency, while detractors (26%) worry about the taste, vaccine absorption, and efficacy. Additional research could investigate whether currently non-vaccinating pharmacies would be willing to offer oral vaccines, and the impact of oral vaccines on vaccine acceptance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.