Canadian Chiropractors' Perception of Educational Preparation to Counsel Patients on Immunization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study describes the prevalence and correlates of perceptions of Canadian doctors of chiropractic regarding the adequacy of their undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) educational preparation to counsel patients about immunization/vaccination and explores their preferences for continuing education (CE) in this area. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based postal survey of Alberta chiropractors was conducted in the summer of 2002. RESULTS: The response rate was 78.2%. Forty-five percent perceived that their formal UG chiropractic education prepared them adequately to counsel people on immunization compared with 64% who agreed that their self-directed PG education prepared them adequately. College of graduation was significantly associated with perceptions related to UG but not PG education. Those who felt prepared to counsel on immunization by UG education used different immunization information sources than those who felt prepared by PG or both UG and PG education. Use of specific sources and perception of preparedness to counsel on immunization were both associated with antivaccination behaviors. Those who felt prepared by PG or both UG and PG education were more likely to engage in antivaccination behavior than others. Most respondents indicated interest in CE on immunization. CONCLUSION: The proportion of doctors of chiropractic who perceive themselves adequately prepared to counsel on immunization varies by type of education considered and is related to vaccination behavior. Many are interested in some form of CE related to immunization/vaccination.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".