Opinions of Quebec Parents and Vaccinators on the Usefulness of Chickenpox Vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A chickenpox vaccine was recently licensed in Canada. Because this vaccine has caused some controversy within the health care profession, studies among Quebec parents and vaccine providers were carried out, surveying their opinions concerning chickenpox vaccination. METHODS: Three studies among parents of preadolescents, parents of two-year-old children completely or incompletely vaccinated and vaccinators were completed. The studies asked for opinions concerning the usefulness of vaccinating children against chickenpox. RESULTS: The majority of parents of preadolescents (56%), and parents of two-year-old children completely (64%) and incompletely vaccinated (60%) favoured chickenpox vaccination. Among vaccinators, 53% of paediatricians, 37% of general practitioners and 33% of nurses considered universal vaccination of young children to be useful. A greater proportion of health care professionals were in favour of a policy of vaccinating groups at risk, such as susceptible adolescents (86%, 75% and 58%, respectively). There was a positive association between the perceived severity of chickenpox and the potential usefulness of the vaccine. CONCLUSION: Quebec parents are more favourably disposed to chickenpox vaccine than vaccine providers. In contrast, strategies targeting susceptible groups would be generally well received by health care professionals. A considerable amount of work will be needed to convince vaccinators of the benefits of a universal childhood vaccination against chickenpox.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".