Abstract

Aim

This research aims to analyse the effect of novel vaccination techniques on people's recovery rate.

Background

Since no specific secondary research study has been conducted for the research topic previously, the conduct of secondary research based on the quantitative SLR method can be justified. Novel vaccination techniques can be stated to be helpful for the delivery of vaccines with fewer complications and higher efficacies. Therefore, its effect on the recovery rate of a particular disease can be researched in future.

Perspectives Methodology

The specific perspective of methodology has been observed to be quantitative with deductive reasoning for the conduction of SLR.  

Method

A keyword-based search strategy will be used for data collection. The selected databases comprise both open and closed-access databases. Both will be consulted when required. Data will be recorded in a data extraction table and used for analytical purposes. A quality assessment of the collected research papers will be done using the JBI checklist. The proposed research will not require external funding sources as it is a secondary research study. 

Introduction

The proposed research topic will be "EFFECT OF NOVEL VACCINATION TECHNIQUES ON THE RATE OF RECOVERY OF PATIENTS”. This research topic has been taken from the title of the current report. There are various methods of vaccination which are associated with the prevention of several diseases. Seven methods of vaccination have already been found to be available, according to previous research studies.

The seven methods are named – Intraocular (Eye Drop) or Nasal Instillation method, Subcutaneous Injection Method, Break Dipping Method, Wing Web Prick Method, IM or Intramuscular method, drinking water or oral vaccination, dosing pump-based vaccination, spray vaccination, and intravenous injection (Koirala et al. 2020).

Vaccination prevents the occurrence of a disease and increases the recovery rate of a person suffering from a specific disease if he or she has contact with the pathogen again. A limited number of research works were observed to be available for the novel or newly discovered vaccination methods. The previously discovered technical methods have been observed to be used according to the specific disease and the vaccine that has to be administered (Deng et al. 2020).

Background

The importance of vaccine delivery has been observed to be significant only after the vaccines are manufactured. Vaccine administration has been observed to be done with the help of injection needles. For example, it has been observed that 32.9% of the people living in low-income countries have received only one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (Mathieu 2020). This vaccination was done by intramuscular method or IM method. In this way, several other vaccination methods are used to carry out the process.

However, recent research works have shown that there are several new methods of vaccine delivery (Ho et al. 2021). These new methods can help in faster vaccine delivery and improve compliance in the general population. For example, research for pain-free vaccination is already being undertaken (Shahzamani et al. 2021). Furthermore, injecting without using needles (jet injectors) has been observed to decrease the risks of needle-based injuries (Hossain et al. 2020). This novel technique further prevents improper usage of needles or the reuse of syringes.

The microneedle approach is another method of vaccine delivery. However, research is still being done on the novel approach (Yan et al., 2020). Vaccine administration by nasal sprays has been observed to be another novel vaccination technique. 

Upon thorough research of the existing knowledge base, two relevant research studies about novel vaccination techniques were found. The two research papers discussed the effectiveness of novel vaccine delivery methods for two different diseases. However, one research study was conducted on humans, and the other was conducted on animals.

Tang et al. (2018) researched a novel vaccine delivery model for vaccine delivery in Chickens against parasites. They used an experimental design, which was different from the research design used by (Masemola et al. 2021). Masemola et al. (2021) conducted their research study by using a quantitative research design. This statement  was different from the experimental design.

Tang et al. (2018) have stated that the novel vaccine delivery process using transgenic Eimeria tenella was helpful in expressing antigens against the disease. Therefore, it was recommended that this vaccine be helpful in preventing and improving recovery rates from recurrent malaria as it is a sporozoite vaccine delivery method.

On the other hand, Masemola et al. (2021) talked of a cost-effective vaccine delivery method in their research study. The research study has stated that the participants preferred the multivalent delivery of vaccines because of their high efficacy and fewer side effects. Therefore, it can be said that it will increase the strength of prevention and recovery rate among patients with recurrent diseases. 

In Genomics , DNA technology is one of the effective technologies of vaccination. This respective technology enabled the overall system of using DNA or RNA encoding system. It effectively generates various kinds of modified vectors as the essential carriers for different sorts of pathogens.

In this way, it efficiently identifies the key antigens and decodes some of the aspects of the immune responses of the patients' bodies. Sometimes, this is called rationally designed vaccines as it is composed of different sorts of antigens and delivery systems (Matić & Šantak, 2022). Moreover, the rationally designed vaccines consist of various effective adjuvants that help to create specific epitopes that help to protect the patients against specific pathogens. This can help to develop things like effective management of all the things.

As time has progressed, along with the DNA or RNA used in encoding system vaccines, some other methods of vaccines have also been developed. As an example, it can be said that the earlier generation vaccines were completely based on the microorganism or toxoid. The new generation vaccines are developed with minimalistic approaches and are devoid of all sorts of unwanted side effects (Matić & Šantak, 2022).

As stated earlier that Intraocular (Eye Drop) or Nasal Instillation method is one of the effective techniques of novel vaccination, the article authored by Leigh et al., (2018) stated that Intraocular or eye drop vaccines are more effective than the nasal installation method. Even, the eye drop method is more effective than the method of vaccination that is delivered through the oral cavity. This article collected quantitative data through conducting trials.

This article has been searched on the database of Google Scholar using keywords like 'effective methods of novel vaccinations', 'rate of success of Intraocular method of novel vaccination' and many more. This article has significantly explored that the eye drop vaccination system is more effective than the nasal installation method, but it failed to explore the rate of success of this system in this current world.

In the DARE, database, the above-mentioned keyword and a new keyword like 'efficiency Subcutaneous Injection Method of vaccines' were used. After opening the DARE database, a click was done on Rutgers University and after clicking there, the database was opened and then the mentioned keywords were used. But, no such results were there.

However, the same keywords were used in the database of Google Scholar and few articles were found. The article authored by Lin et al., (2023), is an example of this. This also used quantitative data by analysing mouse spleen cells and an ELISA test was also done the mice used as the sample for this study were experimented with through subcutaneous injection methods and intramuscular injection methods. It has been found that the subcutaneous method of vaccination is highly effective as it has fewer systematic adverse events if it is compared to intramuscular injection. Still, the limitation of it is that it has not been able to explore the exact rate of effectiveness of recovery of the patients.

The same happened with the keywords ' Break Dipping Method of vaccination' as suitable articles regarding this are not available both in Google Scholar and the DARE database. Based on all these, it is seen that articles regarding specific areas like the rate of success of these mentioned methods of novel vaccinations in the path of recovering the diseases of the patients are not so available.

Due to this reason, it has been made mandatory to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on this. Apart from this, it is also seen that conducting an SLR can be effective in this context. As an example, it can be said that in the DARE database, keywords like 'significance of drinking water' method of vaccination have been used and no such information has been gained. Rather in Google Scholar, few articles have been available.

The article authored by Renu et al., (2020), is an example of this case as this article has been gained in the platforms of Google Scholar. This article has stated that when the drinking water method of vaccines is used, then it helps to increase the immune response among the patients. Not only this but it is also seen that it also helps to reduce the challenges of bacterial load. The same has been happened with the other methods of vaccinations also. 

The Wing Web Prick Method, IM or Intramuscular method, drinking water or oral vaccination and many more have been used as keywords in the databases of DARE and Google Scholar. In this context, it is to say that the DARE database is not effective as no such effective articles are available there regarding this topic.

Rather the database of Google Scholar is more effective. Still, an issue was there that in both the databases of Google Scholar and DARE, the articles regarding the rate of efficiency of effective methods of vaccination are not available and for this, the conducting a systematic literature review has been mandatory so that accurate information can be gained.

Also Read - Cell Biology Assignment Help

Research Question And Aims.

The research question that will be addressed in the future research study is –
“What  is the effect of novel vaccination techniques on people's recovery rate?”

This research question was developed by using a PEO or population, exposure and outcome framework. The question can be described by the PEO format as follows –
P – People suffering from diseases that can be cured through vaccinations 
E – Novel methods of vaccination
O – Increased recovery rate and prevention.

This framework was selected since the PICO framework was not relevant to this research question. In the PICO framework, a population, intervention, comparator and outcome are required. There is no intervention or comparator associated with the above research question. Therefore, the use of novel vaccination techniques was taken as the exposure for the study population. The use of the PEO framework for developing research questions thus stands justified. 

This research aims to analyse the effect of novel vaccination techniques on people's recovery rates. The sub-aim will be used for a better understanding of the factors associated with the recovery, and it goes as follows –

To find out if there is a relationship between the preventive strength of the vaccines and the vaccine delivery technique. 

At the same time, another aim of this respective study is to explore and analyse the impacts of respective novel vaccination techniques on the recovery rate of patients suffering from diseases that can be cured through the doses of various sorts of novel vaccines.

Through setting this aim, this research focuses on exploring the specific rate of recovery of the patients. As per the experts, multiple types of vaccination techniques are there and exploring the rate of efficiency of these techniques is mandatory as with the help of this, the most suitable vaccination techniques can be identified and those can be utilised for treating the patients. Due to this reason, it is seen that all are effective in this context.

Apart from this, this research work also aims to explore the ability of each type of vaccination to treat patients suffering from novel diseases.

Perspective And Methodology

Some various perspectives and methodologies can be used for the completion of the proposed research. The methodologies fall under the criteria of primary and secondary research, respectively. The two methods are differentiated based on the source and type of data collected.

Primary studies require live participants, and secondary design-based research studies need data from research done by other researchers. In other words, it can be stated that there is no scope for obtaining ethical approval, and therefore, primary design cannot be followed for future research. Thus, secondary research will be conducted. However, whether quantitative or qualitative research will be performed for the proposed research has to be selected. 

Since prevention and recovery rates are two variables, the selection of a quantitative research design will be justified for the proposed research. In order to answer the research question, the present author will utilise a method known as the structured literature review (Pardi et al. 2020). 

As a research study shows, evidence-based practice or EBP is the main standard for every healthcare research. EBP is the main guideline every healthcare sector follows to treat the patient population (Lawes-Wickwar et al. 2021). SLR is the only research design that provides a scope for quantitatively analysing the existing data and finding the effectiveness level of a particular process (Chung et al. 2020). 

However, a qualitative research design will not be justified for the current research topic. The patient recovery rate cannot be observed using a qualitative research design. The variable rate is a quantifiable result obtained after analysing previous research studies (Yan et al. 2020). Therefore, it can be said that quantitative research will be better for the current research. Moreover, qualitative reviews are much broader and more influential when considering non-numerical data. 

Here in this context, it can be said that the quantitative data analysis method will be used for the sake of analysing the collected data. This system is effective to analyse quantitative data as it develops the relationships between the variables for the sake of having an idea about the research topic. In quantitative studies, various numerical data are explored and analysed. Due to this reason, through using this analytical process, the collected numerical data are analysed through developing internal relationships among these (Yao et al., 2022).

In this study, the main focal point is exploring the rate of success or efficiency of various novel vaccination techniques. This means, based on the rate of recovery, the effect of this on the patient's recovery can be understood. Both thematic analysis and statistical analysis are effective methods of data analysis, but thematic data is effective in the studies where qualitative data is collected. Since in this study, only quantitative data is collected, statistical analysis of data is more effective than thematic analysis.

Also Read - Instant Assignment Help

Research Paradigm 

Research paradigm is the philosophical knowledge of the researchers through the help of which they develop some beliefs about successfully conducting the study. This means it is the set of beliefs of the researchers along with some assumptions and principles of them to conduct the research. Various sorts of research paradigms are there and those are positivism, interpretivism, constructivism and many more.

Here in this study, the positivism paradigm is used. This sort of paradigm says that researchers need to rely on objective observations and effective measurements through which they develop any knowledge (Park et al., 2020).

Apart from this, it is also seen that the positivism approach is highly effective in research works where quantitative data is collected. The reason is that if positivism philosophy is utilised, then the researchers get the opportunity of observing the collected data through experiments. This helps them to gain accurate results.

Therefore, it is seen that since in this study, only the quantitative secondary data is collected, this positivism paradigm has been used with the help of this, through proper experiments and measurements, the rate of efficiency of each technique of novel vaccinations is understood. Due to this reason, it has been used.

The proposed review will use the quantitative data, sum it up, and provide the average to represent the outcomes. This will help in easily addressing the study's aims. This process of quantitative SLR has also been used in another research study (Rodriguez et al. 2020). 

The proposed research, focused on the prevention and recovery rates, respectively, will specifically use a secondary design due to constraints of primary research conduction. Quantitative SLR will be conducted, and it is well justified to conduct the same. Finally, the proposed review will aim to analyse the effectiveness of novel vaccination techniques in increasing recovery rates.

Deductive reasoning will be helpful in guiding the proposed quantitative SLR to success. Thus, the proposed research study will be viewed from a quantitative perspective and will be completed by the SLR method. The SLR methodology will form a logical foundation for all the research processes needed for the completion of the proposed study. 

Methods: Literature Search Strategy

A keyword-based search strategy will be undertaken with Google Scholar, PubMed, Medline, and Scopus databases. These four databases will be selected since they are well known for storing a large number of medical research papers (Menon et al. 2021). These four databases will be searched using respective keywords obtained from the title of the research study.

However, not every research paper or journal article relevant to the study topic will be selected. The search process will be modified by using limiters. The use of limiters has been observed to be common in every systematic review-based study as it adds variation between two systematic reviews on similar topics (Mollalo et al., 2020).

For example, a review can conduct an analysis with papers published between 2013 and 2020, and the other can conduct the analysis with papers published from 2010 to 2013.

Thus, both can have different findings, even if the same topic is used, due to the difference in publication period. Based on the above evidence, the search process will further be restricted to English publication inclusions and papers published between 2013 and 2023.

The ten-year-long publication period was selected in order to avoid missing any study data. English is a universally accepted language and, therefore, was selected as the publication language inclusion criteria. Furthermore, a review of secondary research studies is not possible, especially for quantitative SLR-based studies.

Since the proposed research study is based on a quantitative SLR design, all secondary papers will be excluded from the search results. The research papers published before 2013 will be excluded as older data can be stated to be obsolete for the current requirements. 

The search terms will be generated from the research question based on the PEO format. These search terms were – "Vaccination", "Novel", "Techniques", "Recovery", "Rate", "Disease" and "Prevention".

These search terms will not be utilised as they are. They will be separated by the use of Boolean operators such as AND and OR, AND will be used to separate two different keywords, and OR will be used to separate the synonym of a specific keyword. 
 

The combination of these keywords and synonyms leads to a higher number of research studies as the search results. Therefore, it can be said that the Boolean logic will be a key mechanistic approach to guide the search process.

The table of keywords, along with the Boolean operators, has been presented in Appendix 1. The same will be applied to all the databases, with small changes made in the keywords and headings. 

The use of limiters will be further helpful in avoiding studies with obsolete data and controversial findings (Hanratty et al. 2022). No study with a conflict of interest will be selected for the proposed review.

The collected articles will be stored as references with links in a document file and will be stored on the computer hard drive. In other words, it can be said that the stored references can be used for further research when needed. 

Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria were briefed before, the same needs to be represented in a tabular format based on the PEO format of the research question. The selection criteria are justified for the current study since the effectiveness of novel vaccination techniques need to be analysed and not the existing vaccination techniques.

Also, only quantitative research studies will be selected as the proposed study is based on quantitative SLR. The use of BOOLEAN operators will also be of immense help in data screening. This aligns with the fact that not every study will be selected for the research.

The selection of primary studies in the research is also ensured by the inclusion criteria. If there were no inclusion criteria, then even secondary studies would have been selected for review, which is not feasible or appropriate in nature (Amir-Behghadami and Janati 2020). This type of selection criteria has been used in all SLRs and therefore can be stated to be justified (Amir-Behghadami and Janati 2020). 

The whole research process will be conducted by a single researcher known as the primary reviewer. This primary reviewer is the author himself. The way of selecting research papers for the review will stay the same – first, the titles of the papers will be checked; after that, the abstracts will be followed briefly, and finally, the full-text contents of the research paper will be analysed.

After carrying out these three steps, it should be decided whether a paper meets the inclusion criteria for the proposed research or not. In case of any issues, the respective academic supervisor will be contacted for guidance and supervision purposes. 

Methods: Quality Assessment

A quantitative SLR has been proposed to be conducted in the current report. Since the research will consider secondary data, quality assessment is necessary. Quality assessment will be another specific and reproducible method that will be utilised in the SLR that has been proposed through this report. A critical discussion on the quality assessment of the research studies is necessary (Barker et al. 2023).

This is because of the fact that only moderate to high-quality studies will be selected for the research. The specific indication of the proposed research's quality appraisal tool has been made by the previous statement. 

According to a group of researchers, it can be said that an SLR mainly relies on the quality of the papers. This quality is mostly associated with the methodology of the research study. However, the overall quality of the collected papers should be assessed before including them in the review.

In other words, it can be said that JBI or the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality appraisal tool can be used (Munn et al. 2020). This tool can be justified because experimental research studies are mostly available for review. The checklist is known for providing a systematic framework for the assessment of experimental research quality.

The JBI checklist has been observed to provide a systematic and structured framework for the assessment of quality in experimental research works. On the other hand, clear criteria and guidelines help speed up quality evaluation. The JBI tool was also developed based on strong evidence.

Therefore, it helps in evaluating the research studies based on the best available evidence. JBI checklists are also associated with randomisation, blinding, as well as statistical analysis techniques (Migliavaca et al. 2020). These three factors are relevant for experimental research studies and, therefore will help in addressing the quality of collected evidence for the proposed quantitative SLR.

This specific accessibility increases the widespread adoption as well as application of the tools. Finally, the JBI checklist is available in a user-friendly format. This format helps make the assessments easy to understand by readers from every section of society. On a summarising note, it can be said that this checklist for the quality assessment of quantitative and experimental research papers will be justified for the proposed quantitative SLR research.   

Data Extraction Tool

Data extraction is a necessary step of every SLR-based research study. This extraction process involves sourcing as well as recording relevant information from the primary studies (Shan et al. 2021). A designed data extraction form will be used for the research data extraction.

The form will be developed in a tabular format. This table will comprise severe information obtained from the collected papers. The information will mainly comprise of the author's names, method design, aim, participants, findings and conclusion. This specific list will be subjected to change that will reveal novel inclusion concepts (Dogan et al. 2021).

The overall data table-based details will be further presented in the results table that will be developed during the quality assessment. In other words, it can be said that the extraction table will be presented in a tabular format, as done in other SLR-based papers. Data extraction will be carried out by putting data directly from the evidence source.

A table sample has been given in the appendices section of the current research study. In the aspect of data analysis and research, data extraction is specifically critical for synthesising relevant information from several studies. The research has the ability to define any specific criteria of the collected pieces of evidence on the data extraction table.

In other words, it can be said that data extraction will further aid in the synthesis and analysis of research data. The findings section of the data extraction table will be considered for synthesis and thematic analysis purposes. The development of this table has been carried out by following the process used for other SLR-based studies (Rodriguez et al. 2020).

Data extraction and presentation will be conducted further by the separation of articles according to their research designs. On a summarising note, it can be said that numerical values, as well as textual information, can be presented in the data table of the research study. 

Timetable

The research study will not take a huge amount of time to complete as it will be secondary research. SLR-based research studies are completed in 15 weeks at max (Rodriguez et al. 2020). Since the research process does not need live participant interviewing or surveying, much time is not consumed in the data collection process.

Thematic analysis conduction does not take up much time, and statistical analysis also takes less time when secondary design is considered. The timetable for the proposed research completion has been given in the appendices section of the current report.  
 

Table: Research Timetable
(Source: Self-created)

Budget and likely funding sources

No external funding sources will be needed for the completion of the proposed research study as it is a secondary study. Furthermore, the proposed research study will be completed with a minimal budget that will be compensated only by the author. There is only an internet connection and a desktop needed for the completion of the proposed research. 

Dissemination of results

Publication in relevant journals will be the dissemination process used for the proposed research study. Well-known journals with high-impact factors will be targeted for dissemination processes. The results will also be disseminated by website postings as blog posts.

This process will further help in reaching a large number of audiences who visit the websites. Government websites will also be targeted for posting with appropriate permission from the respective authorities. Finally, the research findings will be disseminated by publishing them on the national health board. The benefits of novel vaccination techniques will enhance people's quality of life in the future.  

 

Top Healthcare Samples

References

Amir-Behghadami, M. and Janati, A., (2020). Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency Medicine Journal.
Barker, T.H., Stone, J.C., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Leonardi-Bee, J., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E. and Munn, Z., (2023). Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), pp.478-493.
Chung, Y.H., Church, D., Koellhoffer, E.C., Osota, E., Shukla, S., Rybicki, E.P., Pokorski, J.K. and Steinmetz, N.F., (2022). Integrating plant molecular farming and materials research for next-generation vaccines. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(5), pp.372-388.
Deng, S.Q., Yang, X., Wei, Y., Chen, J.T., Wang, X.J. and Peng, H.J., (2020). A review on dengue vaccine development. Vaccines, 8(1), p.63.
Dogan, O., Tiwari, S., Jabbar, M.A. and Guggari, S., (2021). A systematic review on AI/ML approaches against COVID-19 outbreak. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7, pp.2655-2678.
Hanratty, J., Keenan, C., O'Connor, S., Miller, S., Bradley, D. and Dempster, M., (2022). PROTOCOL: Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): A suite of systematic reviews and an evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(1), p.e1219.
Ho, W., Gao, M., Li, F., Li, Z., Zhang, X.Q. and Xu, X., (2021). Next‐generation vaccines: nanoparticle‐mediated dna and mrna delivery. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10(8), p.2001812.
Hossain, M.K., Ahmed, T., Bhusal, P., Subedi, R.K., Salahshoori, I., Soltani, M. and Hassanzadeganroudsari, M., (2020). Microneedle systems for vaccine delivery: the story so far. Expert Review of Vaccines, 19(12), pp.1153-1166.
Koirala, A., Joo, Y.J., Khatami, A., Chiu, C. and Britton, P.N., (2020). Vaccines for COVID-19: The current state of play. Paediatric respiratory reviews, 35, pp.43-49.
Lawes-Wickwar, S., Ghio, D., Tang, M.Y., Keyworth, C., Stanescu, S., Westbrook, J., Jenkinson, E., Kassianos, A.P., Scanlan, D., Garnett, N. and Laidlaw, L., (2021). A rapid systematic review of public responses to health messages encouraging vaccination against infectious diseases in a pandemic or epidemic. Vaccines, 9(2), p.72.
Leigh, S.A., Evans, J.D., Collier, S.D. & Branton, S.L., (2018). The impact of vaccination route on Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccine efficacy. Poultry science, 97(9), pp.3072-3075.[Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003257911930851X
Lin, K., Cao, H., Luan, N., Wang, Y., Hu, J. & Liu, C., (2023). Comparison of the Immune Effects of an mRNA Vaccine and a Subunit Vaccine against Herpes Zoster Administered by Different Injection Methods. Vaccines, 11(5), p.1003. [Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/1003
Masemola, M., Owusu-Sekyere, E., Ogundeji, A.A., van Niekerk, H.N. and Chaminuka, P., (2021). Farmers’ preference and willingness to pay for a multivalent lumpy skin disease and Rift Valley fever novel vaccine: A discrete choice experiment in the Free State province, South Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 189, p.105293.
Mathieu, E., Ritchie, H., Ortiz-Ospina, E., Roser, M., Hasell, J., Appel, C., Giattino, C. and Rodés-Guirao, L., (2021). A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature human behaviour, 5(7), pp.947-953.
Matić, Z. & Šantak, M., (2022). Current view on novel vaccine technologies to combat human infectious diseases. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 106, pp.25-56. [Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-021-11713-0
Menon, I., Bagwe, P., Gomes, K.B., Bajaj, L., Gala, R., Uddin, M.N., D’souza, M.J. and Zughaier, S.M., (2021). Microneedles: a new generation vaccine delivery system. Micromachines, 12(4), p.435.
Migliavaca, C.B., Stein, C., Colpani, V., Munn, Z. and Falavigna, M., (2020). Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 127, pp.59-68.
Mollalo, A., Mohammadi, A., Mavaddati, S. and Kiani, B., (2021). Spatial analysis of COVID-19 vaccination: a scoping review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(22), p.12024.
Munn, Z., Barker, T.H., Moola, S., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., McArthur, A., Stephenson, M. and Aromataris, E., (2020). Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI evidence synthesis, 18(10), pp.2127-2133.
Pardi, N., Hogan, M.J. and Weissman, D., (2020). Recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology. Current opinion in immunology, 65, pp.14-20.
Park, Y.S., Konge, L. & Artino Jr, A.R., (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic medicine, 95(5), pp.690-694.[Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from:https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2020/05000/the_positivism_paradigm_of_research.16.aspx/%22
Renu, S., Han, Y., Dhakal, S., Lakshmanappa, Y.S., Ghimire, S., Feliciano-Ruiz, N., Senapati, S., Narasimhan, B., Selvaraj, R. and Renukaradhya, G.J., (2020). Chitosan-adjuvanted Salmonella subunit nanoparticle vaccine for poultry delivered through drinking water and feed. Carbohydrate polymers, 243, p.116434. [Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144861720306081
Rodriguez, S.A., Mullen, P.D., Lopez, D.M., Savas, L.S. and Fernandez, M.E., (2020). Factors associated with adolescent HPV vaccination in the US: A systematic review of reviews and multilevel framework to inform intervention development. Preventive medicine, 131, p.105968.
Shahzamani, K., Mahmoudian, F., Ahangarzadeh, S., Ranjbar, M.M., Beikmohammadi, L., Bahrami, S., Mohammadi, E., Esfandyari, S., Alibakhshi, A. and Javanmard, S.H., (2021). Vaccine design and delivery approaches for COVID-19. International Immunopharmacology, 100, p.108086.
Shan, J., Britton, P.N., King, C.L. and Booy, R., (2021). The immunogenicity and safety of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in development: A systematic review. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, 15(4), pp.539-551.
Tang, X., Liu, X., Yin, G., Suo, J., Tao, G., Zhang, S. and Suo, X., (2018). A novel vaccine delivery model of the apicomplexan Eimeria tenella expressing Eimeria maxima antigen protects chickens against infection of the two parasites. Frontiers in immunology, 8, p.1982.
Yan, X., Zhou, M., Yu, S., Jin, Z. and Zhao, K., (2020). An overview of biodegradable nanomaterials and applications in vaccines. Vaccine, 38(5), pp.1096-1104.
Yan, X., Zhou, M., Yu, S., Jin, Z. and Zhao, K., (2020). An overview of biodegradable nanomaterials and applications in vaccines. Vaccine, 38(5), pp.1096-1104.
Yao, Y., Wei, M. & Bai, B., (2022). Descriptive statistical analysis of experimental data for wettability alteration with surfactants in carbonate reservoirs. Fuel, 310, p.122110. [Viewed 2 May 2024]. Available from:https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3143&context=geosci_geo_peteng_facwork