Parental Opinions Regarding Poliomyelitis Immunizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The successful eradication of poliomyelitis in the United States has primarily been due to the use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). However, because of the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis with OPV, the use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) has become the accepted option. We performed a cross-sectional survey of parents of children less than 18 months of age to determine parental preference regarding poliomyelitis vaccine options. Parents were asked questions about their knowledge regarding poliomyelitis and available vaccines. Parents were also given information about the risks and benefits of the 3 immunization options (all OPV, all IPV, and sequential IPV/OPV) and then asked to choose among the 3 schedules. We distributed 146 questionnaires, with an 88% response rate. Parents were, on average, 22 years old and had 12 years of education. Fifty-eight percent of parents thought that decisions regarding vaccine choices should be made by the physician and caregiver together. However, when given the choice, 41 % could not decide among the different vaccine options. One quarter (25%) chose the all OPV, 13% the all IPV, and 21% the sequential IPV/OPV schedule. Older parents were more likely to choose the all IPV schedule (p=0.042). There was no correlation with the parental level of education. More studies are required to determine if further education will empower urban parents to be more active participants in the medical decision process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".