Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36281468›Full record

ArticleVaccine: X2022

Evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses: A scoping review.

Alexcia Carr, Eric Pittman, Hyllore Imeri, Saara Nasruddin, Wesley Sparkmon, Katharine J Head, Sarah Vivo, Marie Barnard

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alexcia CarrDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Eric PittmanCenter for Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, University of Mississippi, MS, USA.
Hyllore ImeriDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Saara NasruddinDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Wesley SparkmonDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Katharine J HeadDepartment of Communication Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Sarah VivoIndiana Immunization Coalition, USA.
Marie BarnardDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vaccinations are successful, cost-effective tools to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Many colleges conduct vaccination campaigns on their campuses for various vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles, mumps, influenza, HPV, and most recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. Implementing these campaigns requires substantial effort and understanding their effectiveness is an important factor in justifying these programs. Aim: This scoping review aims to identify, review, and summarize existing evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses in order to provide evaluation guidance for institutions planning future vaccination campaigns. Methods: Publications that focused on vaccination campaigns on college campuses for students and/or faculty and staff and described their evaluation methods were included in our analysis. A systematic search of the literature identified 2,101 articles. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and references searched, 43 articles were identified for full-text review. Sixteen articles provided evaluation information and were systematically reviewed. Results: Interventions targeted a variety of vaccine-preventable diseases, with the majority either aiming to increase HPV vaccine uptake or vaccinate against meningococcal serogroups. Most studies reported on campaigns that included both educational activities and provided vaccinations. Evaluation methods varied widely. Some studies measured vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine uptake was most commonly measured as a simple count of doses administered. Conclusions: College campus vaccination campaigns are evaluated in multiple ways, with little consistency in how the effectiveness of campaigns are measured. There is a need to develop clear evaluation methods for college vaccination programs, especially how to calculate vaccination rates associated with these efforts.

Indexed as

CollegeHPV vaccineHuman papillomavirus (HPV)Scoping reviewVaccination campaign

Identifiers

PMID36281468
PMCPMC9586992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.