Vaccination of Emergency Department Patients at High Risk for Influenza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of Canadian emergency department (ED) patients who are at risk for increased morbidity from influenza but were not vaccinated and to determine emergency physicians' (EPs') willingness to screen for and prescribe influenza vaccination. METHODS: The authors surveyed a convenience sample of patients presenting during a one-week period at each of four EDs in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, after the end of the seasonal period for vaccination. They also surveyed all full-time EPs in Winnipeg. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of emergency patients at risk for increased morbidity from influenza had not been vaccinated and 59.3% of them were willing to be vaccinated during an emergency visit. This represents 31.6% (+/-3.1%) of all high-risk patients and 15% of all emergency patients. High-risk patients who did not have a regular physician were less likely to have been vaccinated (OR 0.165, p = 0.018). Most EPs rarely or never offer influenza vaccination (30% and 57%, respectively). Seventy-six percent of them were willing to prescribe vaccination. CONCLUSION: Many ED patients are at risk for increased morbidity from influenza and have not been vaccinated. The majority of them are willing to be vaccinated during an emergency visit and the majority of EPs are willing to prescribe vaccination. Emergency department vaccination for influenza should be considered as a strategy to increase vaccination among high-risk groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.022 | 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".