Investigating Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: A Quantitative and Qualitative Description of Vaccine Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceptions of the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The overarching objective of this thesis was to investigate the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy in Canada and examine relationships among vaccine beliefs, socio-demographic characteristics, and seasonal influenza immunization. Quantitative findings were derived from a national health risk perception survey administered to adults across Canada (N = 1,125). Respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement (1 = do not agree at all to 5 = agree completely) with 2 vaccine-related behaviour statements and 21 vaccine-related beliefs statements. A principal components analysis was performed to reduce the number of belief statements into meaningful components. Two components were retained and reflected negative beliefs about ‘vaccine safety’ and positive beliefs about ‘vaccine regulation and benefits’. Descriptive results presented in the first study indicated a heightened uncertainty about the long-term side effects of vaccination, particularly with respect to the purported link between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and the development of autism, among survey respondents. Multivariate analyses identified differences in the endorsement of numerous vaccine beliefs according to age and educational attainment. Findings revealed that older respondents and respondents without a university education demonstrated more negative attitudes towards vaccination, whereas younger respondents and respondents with a university education demonstrated more positive vaccine attitudes, respectively. Finally, both components of vaccine beliefs were significant predictors of vaccine-related behaviours, including discussing information about vaccines with others and reported receipt of the seasonal influenza vaccine. The second study investigated interrelationships among components of vaccine beliefs, socio-demographic characteristics, and reported receipt of the seasonal influenza vaccine. A mediation analysis revealed that higher levels of agreement with the statement ‘I usually get the seasonal flu vaccine’ among older adults was associated with lower levels of agreement with negative beliefs about vaccine safety in conjunction with higher levels of agreement with positive beliefs about the regulation and benefits of vaccines, whereas the opposite was true for younger adults. Also, a significant moderation analysis revealed that among respondents with greater concern about vaccine safety, those with higher educational attainment reported lower levels of agreement with the statement ‘I usually get the seasonal flu vaccine’ compared to those with lower educational attainment. Recognizing the limitations of quantitative findings, a qualitative investigation was undertaken to provide more in-depth insight on the factors driving influenza immunization among healthy adults. A thematic analysis was performed on transcripts from 6 semi-structured focus group discussions with a total of 18 participants residing in Ottawa, Ontario. Findings identified 7 themes and 8 sub-themes related to contextual, vaccine specific, and individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Participants predominantly discussed themes related to individual determinants of vaccine hesitancy (perceived severity, susceptibility, and likelihood of contracting the influenza virus; personal interests; interactions with healthcare professionals). The perceived novelty, severity and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, as well as a lack of information and discontent with communication by government health authorities and the media were also discussed. Overall, findings identified salient themes informing vaccine decision-making and behaviours among a sample of educated adults, which can inform subsequent studies investigating influenza immunization in a more representative sample of Canadian adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».