Parents’ decision-making about the human papillomavirus vaccine for their daughters: II. Qualitative results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the study was to examine the reasons given by parents who accepted or refused the HPV vaccine for their daughters in the context of a free provincial school-based vaccination program. A random sample of parents of 9-10 y old girls completed a mail-in questionnaire. Parents' responses to 2 open-ended questions were assessed using content analysis. Coding themes were derived from the Health Belief Model. 806 parents returned and answered the relevant items. 88% of these parents decided to vaccinate their daughter. The primary reasons for parents' acceptance was the perceived benefits (e.g., health protection, cancer/HPV prevention) and cues to action (e.g., physician recommendation, trusting the school vaccine program). Reasons for parental refusal included barriers (e.g., fear of side effects) and low susceptibility (e.g., their daughter is not at risk). Both groups of parents had unanswered questions, doubts and often inaccurate information. This study provides unique insight into parents' perspectives concerning the decision making process for their daughter. There appears to be a need for accurate and complete information to assure informed HPV vaccine decision-making by parents and to increase HPV vaccine uptake.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".