Localising vaccination services: Qualitative insights on public health and minority group collaborations to co-deliver coronavirus vaccines

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.10.21263372: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    An implementation method is a more complicated operation, indicated by the scaled-up involvement of Hatzola in the UK coronavirus vaccine programme, and involves the following key considerations: Strengths and limitations: UK data has consistently suggested that ethnic and religious minorities are less likely to accept the new COVID-19 vaccinations.2 This study interviewed a wide range of people, including public health professionals, community representatives and intended beneficiaries to examine opportunities to promote high coverage levels. We recognise that some stakeholders involved in delivering the coronavirus vaccination programme were unable to be recruited. Further work should consider how collaborative organisations perceive the feasibility of localised vaccination services as outlined above.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.