Immunization and the Chiropractor-Patient Interaction: A Western Canadian Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how the topic of vaccination arises during interactions between chiropractors and their patients, the advice that is given to patients, and the factors that influence the opinions of the chiropractors. METHODS: Data were collected in semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of chiropractors in Calgary, Canada. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and constant comparison. Participants were chiropractors who had participated in a postal survey of immunization-related beliefs and behaviors and who consented to contact for further study. RESULTS: Data redundancy was attained after 14 interviews were complete. Immunization arose in clinical encounters by both indirect (provision of reference materials and/or posting of media stories in clinic waiting rooms) and direct communication. Direct communications were most commonly patient initiated and were prompted by media reports, clinic waiting room material, or patient perceived adverse reactions; however, they were also initiated by the chiropractors, particularly if they were seeing young children with their parents. For some chiropractors, the emphasis was on providing information of a negative, antivaccination nature; others referred clients to physicians and nurses. Factors that influenced their opinions included their chiropractic training, philosophy of health and illness, and self or important others having experienced negative reactions that were perceived to result from immunization. CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and chiropractors initiate discussions on immunization in practice, with many chiropractors using indirect stimuli to open the topic. Doctors of chiropractic in this particular sample were heterogeneous with respect to the information provided to patients. However, study findings may not be generalizable outside Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".