Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of pregnant women approached to participate in a Tdap maternal immunization randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunization with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy is recommended in a number of countries to prevent newborn deaths from whooping cough. In some jurisdictions, vaccine uptake during pregnancy is low. We undertook a survey of the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of pregnant women who had been approached to participate in a randomized, controlled trial of tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy. A total of 346 women completed the survey. Knowledge about pertussis and pertussis vaccine was generally low; the mean number of correct answers was 10.65 out of 19 questions. Attitudes toward maternal immunization were generally favorable; 51.7%-94.7% of women had positive responses to 10 attitudinal statements. Substantial uncertainty was shown in responses to a number of the attitudinal statements related to vaccination during pregnancy; 22.3%-45.7% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements. Importantly, 89% of women reported that they would get immunized with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy if their physician recommended it. We conclude that a national recommendation to be immunized with pertussis vaccine during pregnancy supported by their physicians' recommendation would be well received by Canadian women.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".