MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasons for non-compliance of mothers to immunization schedule of children exposed to HIV

2013· article· en· W2341048948 on OpenAlexaff
Maria do Socorro Mendonça Sherlock, Maria Vera Lúcia Moreira Leitão Cardoso, Ana Luiza de Aguiar Lélis, Márcia Maria Coelho Oliveira Lopes, Maria Lúcia Duarte Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueRev Rene · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunizationScheduleMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Compliance (psychology)ComprehensionFamily medicineOutpatient clinicData collectionPediatricsPsychologySocial psychologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to describe the knowledge of HIV seropositive mother on the children immunization schedule and know the reasons for their non-compliance to the children immunization schedule. This is a descriptive study with qualitative approach carried out in the outpatient clinic of a public institution, in Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. The subjects were 16 mothers or caregivers of children up to two years of age exposed to HIV/AIDS. Data collection happened through semi-structured interviews conducted from January to March 2012. Two categories emerged from the analysis: Lack of knowledge of mother about special immunization schedule for children with HIV and Reasons for non-compliance to special immunization schedule. Mothers presented poor knowledge, fear and disinterest in the information on the disease and preventive measures, as well as the difficulties faced. Health professionals should promote strategies with these mothers seeking integration, commitment and comprehension of the importance of immunization in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRev ReneSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207