Parental views on pediatric vaccination: the impact of competing advocacy coalitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate on pediatric vaccination policy has been characterized by the presence of two distinct coalitions: those in favor of current vaccination policies and those expressing concern about these policies. The target of these coalitions is the vaccination decision of parents. To determine their influence, we conducted four focus groups in Toronto, Canada examining parental decision-making concerning pediatric vaccination. Our focus groups consisted of both fathers and mothers and parents who fully vaccinated and those who did not. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework as an analytic guide, we identified several themes that provided insights into how effective the two coalitions have been in conveying their viewpoints. In general, we identified a variety of levels of belief systems existing amongst parents concerned about vaccination, some more amenable to change than others. We found that the choice to not vaccinate was largely a result of concerns about safety and, to a lesser extent, about lack of effectiveness. These parental views reflected the ability of the coalition concerned about vaccination to challenge parents' trust in traditional public health sources of information. In contrast, the parental decision to vaccinate was due to recognizing the importance of preventing disease and also a consequence of not questioning recommendations from public health and physicians and feeling pressured to because of school policies. Importantly, parents who fully vaccinate appear to have weaker belief systems that are potentially susceptible to change. While current policies appear to be effective in encouraging vaccination, if trust in public health falters, many who currently support vaccination may reevaluate their position. More research needs to be conducted to identify approaches to communicate the risks and benefits of vaccination to parents.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".