The effectiveness of telephone reminders and home visits to improve measles, mumps and rubella immunization coverage rates in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan), only 67.4% of children overall are fully immunized for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) at 24 months of age, with only 43.7% of low-income children fully immunized. METHODS: Parents of children who were behind in MMR immunizations were contacted to determine knowledge about, beliefs toward and barriers to immunization. The effectiveness of a telephone reminder system in improving immunization rates in a health region compared with a control health region was determined. Finally, the effectiveness of telephone reminders versus telephone reminders combined with home visits in improving child immunization coverage rates in low-income neighbourhoods was compared. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 629 parents (69% response rate). Of those, 81.8% were not aware that their child was behind in immunizations. In the Saskatoon Health Region, the MMR immunization coverage increased from 67.4% to 74.0% in the first year of intervention (rate ratio = 1.10; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.12). All four neighbourhood groupings (three urban by income and one rural) had relative increases ranging from 9% to 11%. The control health region observed an immunization coverage increase from 66.5% to 69.2% in the first year (rate ratio = 1.04; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). The three low-income neighbourhoods with only telephone reminders had an immunization coverage rate of 48.7% (95% CI 39.5% to 57.8%). The three low-income neighbourhoods that received a telephone reminder and home visit had an immunization coverage rate of 60.5% (95% CI 52.5% to 68.6%). CONCLUSION: Telephone reminder systems have some benefit in increasing child immunization coverage rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".