Vaccination practices of Quebec family physicians. Influenza vaccination status and professional practices for influenza vaccination.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess influenza vaccination status and influenza vaccination practices of family physicians in Quebec. DESIGN: Mail survey of a random sample of 1000 family physicians. SETTING: Family practices in the province of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1000 Quebec family physicians sent questionnaires, 550 responded. After excluding physicians who worked only in institutions, had no patients older than 65 years, or did clinical work less than 20% of the time, 379 respondents were eligible for the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccination status of family physicians in 1996 and professional practices based on six clinical and administrative activities pertaining to influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Prevalence of vaccination was 35.5% (95% confidence interval 30.8% to 40.4%) among responding physicians and was higher among those 60 years and older, those with a chronic condition, and those perceiving high peer pressure to get vaccinated. Most respondents frequently assessed the current influenza vaccination status of their patients, risk factors for influenza-related complications, and contraindications to the vaccine. They also frequently provided education about influenza and its vaccine, recommended vaccination, and administered the vaccine. Only a few reported assessing prior influenza vaccinations or recording vaccination status regularly. Finally, vaccinated physicians recommended the vaccine more frequently to their patients than unvaccinated physicians did. CONCLUSION: Promotion programs focusing on peer influence could increase vaccination of family physicians. This could in turn improve vaccination coverage of elderly patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".