Trends in influenza vaccine coverage and vaccine hesitancy in Canada, 2006/07 to 2013/14: results from cross-sectional survey data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Past studies have reported influenza vaccination coverage below national targets, but up-to-date estimates are needed to understand trends and to identify areas for intervention. The objective of this study was to describe recent trends in influenza vaccination in Canada, timing of uptake and reasons for not receiving the vaccine. METHODS: We pooled data from the 2007 to 2014 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey. Using bootstrapped survey weights, we examined influenza vaccine coverage by various groups, including by age and by presence of chronic medical conditions. RESULTS: The overall sample included 481 526 respondents. Across all survey cycles combined, 29% of respondents reported receiving seasonal influenza vaccination in the past 12 months. Coverage levels were fairly consistent during the study period, but varied by province or territory. Vaccination coverage decreased over time among those aged 65 years and older. Among those who received a vaccination, it was most common to do so in October or November. Among those not vaccinated, the most frequently cited reason was believing it was unnecessary. INTERPRETATION: Influenza vaccination coverage continues to fall below national targets, with substantial declines seen among those aged 65 years and older, a group for which vaccination is particularly important. More intensive efforts are needed to improve coverage in Canada, particularly for high-risk groups.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it