Peril of the pox. Are primary care providers aware of varicella vaccination guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether physicians providing primary care in Ontario were aware of guidelines published by Health Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), their opinions about the varicella vaccine, and factors that influence use of the vaccine. METHODS: A questionnaire examining awareness, knowledge, and perceived barriers to using varicella vaccine was developed and mailed to a random sample of 500 family physicians and 400 pediatricians practising in Ontario. RESULTS: To the 900 questionnaires mailed, 284 family physicians (56.9%) and 232 pediatricians (59.2%) responded. Fifty-six percent of family physicians and 95.4% of pediatricians providing primary care were aware of the Health Canada guidelines. Physicians who were aware of the Health Canada guidelines were more knowledgeable about the vaccine and were more likely to recommend it. Both groups of physicians identified cost (not covered by the government), problems with storage and handling, and concerns about long-term immunity as barriers to use of the vaccine. CONCLUSION: While awareness of the guidelines was associated with better knowledge of and following recommendations for the vaccine, Health Canada guidelines were not widely distributed to all primary care providers. One way to encourage incorporation of varicella vaccine guidelines into practice would be to improve dissemination of the guidelines to all primary care providers.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".