Universal tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination of adults: What Canadian health care providers know and need to know
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) is recommended for all adults in both Canada and the United States. There are few data on the proportion of Canadian adults vaccinated with Tdap; however, anecdotal reports indicate that uptake is low. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of Canadian health care providers (HCPs) in an attempt to identify potential barriers and facilitators to Tdap uptake. HCPs were surveyed and a geographic and practice representative sample was obtained (N =1,167). In addition, 8 focus groups and 4 interviews were conducted nationwide. Results from the survey indicate that less than half (47.5%) of all respondents reported being immunized with Tdap themselves, while 58.5% routinely offer Tdap to their adult patients. Knowledge scores were relatively low (63.2% correct answers). The best predictor of following the adult Tdap immunization guidelines was awareness of and agreement with those recommendations. Respondents who were aware of the recommendations were more likely to think that Tdap is safe and effective, that their patients are at significant risk of getting pertussis, and to feel that they have sufficient information (p < 0.0001 for each statement). Focus group data supported the survey results and indicated that there are substantial gaps in knowledge of pertussis and Tdap among Canadian HCPs. Lack of public knowledge about adult immunization, lack of immunization registries, a costing differential between Td and Tdap, workload required to deliver the vaccine, and vaccine hesitancy were identified as barriers to compliance with the national recommendations for universal adult immunization, and suggestions were provided to better translate recommendations to front-line practitioners.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".