MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063713720 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0923

Association Between Health Care Providers' Influence on Parents Who Have Concerns About Vaccine Safety and Vaccination Coverage

2006· article· en· W2063713720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip J Smith, Allison Kennedy, Karen Wooten, Deborah A. Gust, Larry K. Pickering

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationMeaslesHepatitis B vaccineFamily medicineRubellaDiphtheriaImmunizationPolio vaccineHealth careMeasles vaccineRubella vaccineTetanusVaccine-preventable diseasesPoliomyelitisMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccinePediatricsQuarter (Canadian coin)ImmunologyHepatitis B virus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Parents who have concerns about vaccine safety may be reluctant to have their children vaccinated. The purpose of this study was to explore how vaccination coverage among children 19 to 35 months of age is associated with health care providers' influence on parents' decision to vaccinate their children, and with parents' beliefs about vaccine safety. METHODS: Parents of 7695 children 19 to 35 months of age sampled by the National Immunization Survey were administered the National Immunization Survey Parental Knowledge Module between the third quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2002. Health care providers were defined as a physician, nurse, or any other type of health care professional. Parents provided responses that summarized the degree to which they believed vaccines were safe, and the influence providers had on their decisions to vaccinate their children. Children were determined to be up-to-date if their vaccination providers reported administering > or = 4 doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine, > or = 3 doses of polio vaccine, > or = 1 dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, > or = 3 doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and > or = 3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine. RESULTS: Of all of the parents, 5.7% thought that vaccines were not safe, and 21.5% said that their decision to vaccinate their children was not influenced by a health care provider. Compared with parents who responded that providers were not influential in their decision to vaccinate their children, parents who responded that providers were influential were twice as likely to respond that vaccines were safe for children. Among children whose parents believed that vaccines were not safe, those whose parents' decision to vaccinate was influenced by a health care provider had an estimated vaccination coverage rate that was significantly higher than the estimated coverage rate among children whose parents' decision was not influenced by a health care provider (74.4% vs 50.3%; estimated difference: 24.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers have a positive influence on parents to vaccinate their children, including parents who believe that vaccinations are unsafe. Physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals should increase their efforts to build honest and respectful relationships with parents, especially when parents express concerns about vaccine safety or have misconceptions about the benefits and risks of vaccinations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations374
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207