Parents’ decisions on MMR vaccination for their children were based on personal experience rather than scientific evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McMurray R, Cheater FM, Weighall A, et al . Managing controversy through consultation: a qualitative study of communication and trust around MMR vaccination decisions. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54:520–5.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q What are the factors underpinning parents’ perceptions of risk in relation to measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination? What are the determinants of the decision to vaccinate or not? Qualitative study. 5 general practices in the Leeds area, UK. 69 parents (mean age 34 y, 65 mothers) of children 4–5 years of age. 75% of parents had their children vaccinated (both doses). Parents participated in semistructured individual interviews, which explored their experiences in relation to information and decision support at the second MMR vaccine dose. Interview transcripts were analysed using the framework approach. The authors reviewed subsamples of transcripts to identify key themes for coding. Codes were then defined and validated by discussion among the research team. Overarching themes and deviant cases were identified. 3 key themes were identified: decision determinants, practitioner influence, and support needs. (1) Decision determinants. The primary determinant of vaccination decision was a parent’s previous experience of children with autistic disorders or mumps, measles, or rubella, which informed judgments of the acceptability of alternative outcomes, and the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPractise%26rft.stitle%253Dbjgp%26rft.aulast%253DMcMurray%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%26rft.volume%253D54%26rft.issue%253D504%26rft.spage%253D520%26rft.epage%253D525%26rft.atitle%253DManaging%2Bcontroversy%2Bthrough%2Bconsultation%253A%2Ba%2Bqualitative%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Bcommunication%2Band%2Btrust%2Baround%2BMMR%2Bvaccination%2Bdecisions%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15239914%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjgp&resid=54/504/520&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F2%2F60.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".