Attitudes et croyances des sages-femmes québécoises sur la vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Vaccine acceptability among Quebec midwives is not well documented. The purpose of this study was to examine midwives' knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to immunization in Quebec. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants (17 midwives and 8 midwifery students). The mean duration of the interviews was 1 hour. The interviews were conducted in 2010 and were audiotaped, transcribed and submitted to content analysis using NVivo 8 software. RESULTS: In addition to the laws regulating midwifery practice in Quebec, the findings suggest that most midwifery interventions are based on midwifery philosophy. Informed choice is one of the key principles of this philosophy. In order to help women make an informed decision about vaccination, midwives seek to outline the pros and cons of vaccination using government documentation, as well as other sources such as books on naturopathy. Most of the participating midwives recognized that vaccination has advantages, including disease prevention and free vaccines. Various arguments against vaccination were also identified. Most of these were related to the vaccination schedule and to combined vaccines. Some of the participants noted that it was difficult to find unbiased information about vaccination. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the key role of midwifery philosophy in midwifery practice. Most decisions (such as vaccination) are made on the basis of the principle of informed choice. Most of the participants noted that they lacked information on vaccination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".