MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857274192 · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1926-8

Can opportunities be enhanced for vaccinating children in home visiting programs? A population-based cohort study

2015· article· en· W1857274192 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Isaac, Mariette Chartier, Marni Brownell, Dan Château, Nathan Nickel, Patricia J. Martens, Alan Katz, Joykrishna Sarkar, Milton Hu, Elaine Burland, Chunyan Goh, Carole Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of ManitobaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationBiostatisticsPropensity score matchingDemographyCohortPopulationPublic healthConfoundingCohort studyEnvironmental healthPediatricsImmunologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Home visiting programs focused on improving early childhood environments are commonplace in North America. A goal of many of these programs is to improve the overall health of children, including promotion of age appropriate vaccination. In this study, population-based data are used to examine the effect of a home visiting program on vaccination rates in children. METHODS: Home visiting program data from Manitoba, Canada were linked to several databases, including a provincial vaccination registry to examine vaccination rates in a cohort of children born between 2003 and 2009. Propensity score weights were used to balance potential confounders between a group of children enrolled in the program (n = 4,562) and those who were eligible but not enrolled (n = 5,184). Complete and partial vaccination rates for one and two year old children were compared between groups, including stratification into area-level income quintiles. RESULTS: Complete vaccination rates from birth to age 1 and 2 were higher for those enrolled in the Families First program [Average Treatment Effect Risk Ratio (ATE RR) 1.06 (95 % CI 1.03-1.08) and 1.10 (95 % CI 1.05-1.15) respectively]. No significant differences were found between groups having at least one vaccination at age 1 or 2 [ATE RR 1.01 (95 % CI 1.00-1.02) and 1.00 (95 % CI 1.00-1.01) respectively). The interaction between program and income quintiles was not statistically significant suggesting that the program effect did not differ by income quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Home visiting programs have the potential to increase vaccination rates for children enrolled, despite limited program content directed towards this end. Evidence-based program enhancements have the potential to increase these rates further, however more research is needed to inform policy makers of optimal approaches in this regard, especially with respect to cost-effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207