Immunization delivery in British Columbia: perspectives of primary care physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of family physicians and pediatricians delivering immunizations, including perceived barriers and supports. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Ten cities throughout British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 46 family physicians or general practitioners, 10 pediatricians, and 2 residents. METHODS: A semistructured dialogue guide was used by a trained facilitator to explore participants' experiences and views related to immunization delivery in British Columbia. Verbatim transcriptions were independently coded by 2 researchers. Key themes were analyzed and identified in an iterative manner using interpretive description. MAIN FINDINGS: Physicians highly valued vaccine delivery. Factors facilitating physician-delivered immunizations included strong beliefs in the value of vaccines and having adequate information. Identified barriers included the large time commitment and insufficient communication about program changes, new vaccines, and the adult immunization program in general. Some physicians reported good relationships with local public health, while others reported the opposite experience, and this varied by geographic location. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that physicians are supportive of delivering vaccines. However, there are opportunities to improve the sustainability of physician-delivered immunizations. While compensation schemes remain under the purview of the provincial governments, local public health authorities can address the information needs of physicians.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".