Parental concern about vaccine safety in Canadian children partially immunized at age 2: A multivariable model including system level factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children who begin but do not fully complete the recommended series of childhood vaccines by 2 y of age are a much larger group than those who receive no vaccines. While parents who refuse all vaccines typically express concern about vaccine safety, it is critical to determine what influences parents of 'partially' immunized children. This case-control study examined whether parental concern about vaccine safety was responsible for partial immunization, and whether other personal or system-level factors played an important role. A random sample of parents of partially and completely immunized 2 y old children were selected from a Canadian regional immunization registry and completed a postal survey assessing various personal and system-level factors. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and adjusted ORs (aOR) were calculated with logistic regression. While vaccine safety concern was associated with partial immunization (OR 7.338, 95% CI 4.138-13.012), other variables were more strongly associated and reduced the strength of the relationship between concern and partial immunization in multivariable analysis (aOR 2.829, 95% CI 1.151-6.957). Other important factors included perceived disease susceptibility and severity (aOR 4.629, 95% CI 2.017-10.625), residential mobility (aOR 3.908, 95% CI 2.075-7.358), daycare use (aOR 0.310, 95% CI 0.144-0.671), number of needles administered at each visit (aOR 7.734, 95% CI 2.598-23.025) and access to a regular physician (aOR 0.219, 95% CI 0.057-0.846). While concern about vaccine safety may be addressed through educational strategies, this study suggests that additional program and policy-level strategies may positively impact immunization 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".