Acute otitis media and its prevention by immunization: A survey of Canadian pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common bacterial infectious diseases among children and is a leading cause of child healthcare visits and antibiotic prescriptions. Few vaccines have the potential to prevent AOM. The newer pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) offer a larger spectrum of protection against AOM, as well as preventing severe diseases. The main aim of this study was to assess pediatricians' opinions regarding AOM and its prevention by immunization. RESULTS: Response rate was 50%. Around 60% of respondents estimated that more than 50% of their patients under the age of 3 years would suffer from at least one episode of AOM in the following year. Most respondents (79%) rated consequences of AOM as moderate. Almost all physicians (99%) considered the newer PCV as safe and effective. Most respondents considered their knowledge of the new vaccines was sufficient. More than 90% had a firm intention to recommend newer PCV to their patients. Perceived benefits of AOM prevention by immunization were: reduction of antibiotic administration and reduction of post-AOM complications. More than half of respondents (53%) considered the risk of adverse events as a barrier to AOM prevention by immunization. In multivariate analysis, the main determinant of pediatricians' intention to recommend newer PCV was perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccines (partial R2 = 0.40, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Results of this survey show that AOM is perceived as an important health problem by paediatricians. Information about the increased protection against AOM offered by newer PCV should be disseminated to physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A self-administered, anonymous, mail-based questionnaire based upon the Health Belief Model and the Analytical framework for immunization programs was sent to all 1,852 Canadian pediatricians.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".