Identifying attitudes, beliefs and reported practices of nurses and doctors as immunization providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
pielak k.l., mcintyre c.c., tu a.w., remple v.p., halperin b. & buxton j.a. (2010) Identifying attitudes, beliefs and reported practices of nurses and doctors as immunization providers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (7), 1602–1611. Abstract Title. Identifying attitudes, beliefs and reported practices of nurses and doctors as immunization providers. Aim. This paper is a report of a study conducted to examine the attitudes, beliefs, behavioural intentions and self‐reported behaviour of nurses and physicians relating to key immunization behaviours and compare the findings for nurses and physicians. Background. Immunization is an important and effective public health intervention. Understanding immunization providers’ attitudes and beliefs toward immunization has the potential to improve educational efforts and lead to behavioural change. Method. A postal survey was conducted with all immunization providers in British Columbia, Canada, in 2005. The survey elicited data on demographics, practice characteristics, attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control related to key immunization behaviours. Results. Responses were received from 344 nurses and 349 physicians. The response rate was 67% for nurses and 22% for physicians. More nurses than physicians thought that administering all recommended vaccines at one visit was important (89·2% vs. 63·2% P < 0·001); nurses felt more pressure from parents to administer all recommended vaccines (82·4% vs. 48·7% P < 0·001), and nurses were also more likely to intend to give all recommended vaccines at one visit (98·8% vs. 73·8% P < 0·001). Both nurses and physicians thought that their own receipt of influenza vaccine each year was important (88·9%, 87·1% respectively P = 0·65). Conclusion. The foundational work done to develop the survey tool can be used to modify it so that survey findings can be validated according to the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The results could inform the development of behavioural change interventions targeting the identified determinants of immunization provider behaviour.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".