A study of the knowledge and attitude towards pulse polio immunization in semi urban areas of South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The government of India launched the pulse polio immunization (PPI) programme in 1995 with the aim of eradicating poliomyelitis by the end of 2000. Despite this, 733 children with polio were reported in 2009 alone. Therefore, there is a need to understand the reason underlying such high numbers of cases after so many years of programme implementation. This study was performed to assess the knowledge of the general population about poliomyelitis and PPI and their attitude and practice towards PPI. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was undertaken in two semi- urban areas of Mangalore city. Only houses in which children under five lived were included in the study. Data was collected by interviewing any adult member of the household using a pretested questionnaire. RESULTS: The literacy rate of study participants was 99%. Only 35(10.9%) participants knew the correct mode of transmission of polio. More than one quarter of the study population were under the misconception that polio is a curable disease. The primary source of information about PPI in majority of participants was the television (n = 192; 60%). Two-hundred and eighty eight (90%) participants knew that the purpose of PPI was to eradicate polio. Only 128 (40%) participants knew that polio drops can be given to children with mild illnesses and an identical number of participants knew that hot food stuff should not be given for at least half an hour following vaccination administration. Misconceptions such as PPI causing vaccine overdose was identified among 7 (2.2%) participants, it is a substitute for routine immunization was believed among 30 (9.4%) participants and that oral polio vaccine prevents other diseases was seen among 76 (23.7%) participants. The educational status of the participants was significantly associated with their awareness level (χ(2) =13.668, DF=6, P=0.033). CONCLUSION: This study identified a few important misconceptions associated with polio and PPI which need to be addressed by large scale awareness campaigns in order to achieve polio eradication in the near future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".