ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2024
Performance evaluation on vaccination rates monitoring report system of Shenzhen, China.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the performance of "Vaccination Rates Monitoring Report System" implemented by Shenzhen CDC, we conducted an analysis of the data quality and identify key areas for system improvement. Following evaluation guidelines provided by WHO and United States CDC, we established six evaluation attributes: representativeness, simplicity, acceptability, data reliability, stability and timeliness. In eastern, central and western regions of Shenzhen, we selected one district from each region, of which the local CDC and ten CHSCs under jurisdiction were chosen for evaluation. On-site inspections, questionnaires survey and interviews were utilized for data collection, while the Likert scale method was used for attributes rating evaluation. A total of 70 participants were surveyed, consisting of 60 CHSCs and 10 CDCs staff. The gender ratio was 1:2.5 (males to females), with the majority falling within the 25-34 age range (46%). Most participants held full-time positions (80%) and had more than 5 years of work experience (62%). The system achieved 100% coverage of all CHSCs and CDCs (100%). The cumulative percentage scores for the overall favorable options of simplicity, acceptability, data reliability, stability, and timeliness were 79%, 85%, 73%, 50%, and 71% respectively. The system operates normally with strong representativeness. Acceptability was rated as "good." Simplicity, data reliability, and system timeliness were rated as "average," while system stability was rated as "poor." Based on these survey results, developers should urgently investigate reasons for poor stability, particularly addressing concerns from CHSCs users. Additionally, the issues and shortcomings identified in other attributes should also be gradually improved.
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.