Parental Vaccine Hesitancy in Quebec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: "Vaccine hesitancy" is a concept frequently used in the discourse around vaccine acceptance. This study aims to contribute to the ongoing reflections on tools and indicators of vaccine hesitancy by providing results of a knowledge, attitudes and beliefs (KAB) survey conducted among parents. METHODS: Data were collected in 2014 through a computer-assisted telephone interview survey administered to a sample of parents of children aged between 2 months and 17 years of age. RESULTS: The majority of the 589 parents included in the analyses agreed on the importance of vaccination to protect their children's health and to prevent the spread of diseases in the community. The majority of the parents (81%) reported that their child had received all doses of recommended vaccines and 40% of parents indicated having hesitated to have their child vaccinated. Fear of adverse events and low perceived vulnerability of the child or severity of the disease were the most frequent reasons mentioned by these vaccine-hesitant parents. In multivariate analyses, KAB items remaining significantly associated both with an incomplete vaccination status of the child and parents' vaccine hesitancy were: not thinking that it is important to have the child vaccinated to prevent the spreading of diseases in the community; not trusting the received vaccination information and having felt pressure to have the child vaccinated. DISCUSSION: Further researches will be needed to better understand when, how and why these beliefs are formed in order to prevent the onset of vaccine hesitancy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".