MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522876743 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2016.08.004

Attitudes and Beliefs of Pregnant Women and New Mothers Regarding Influenza Vaccination in British Columbia

2016· article· en· W2522876743 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Julie A. Bettinger, Devon Greyson, Deborah Money

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteBC Children's HospitalWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationFamily medicinePregnancyObstetricsVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although pregnant women have increased risks for influenza morbidity and mortality, influenza vaccination rates among pregnant women in Canada are consistently very low. This mixed-methods study investigated the attitudes and behaviour of pregnant women and new mothers regarding seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a baseline survey and qualitative focus groups with 34 women (26 pregnant women and 8 mothers of newborns), with a follow-up survey to assess outcomes at the end of the subsequent influenza season. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and directed content analysis based on the health belief model. RESULTS: Most women did not consider influenza vaccination to be an important preventative measure to take while pregnant, although some were more willing to consider vaccination during a pandemic. Omission bias played a substantial role as justification for not vaccinating. Participants expressed confusion about recommendations regarding vaccination during pregnancy and frustration with inconsistent messages from health care providers (HCPs), particularly with regard to pandemic vaccines. Women were vaccinated when they perceived themselves and/or their babies to be at increased risk for influenza. Vaccinated women had strong normative influences (usually an HCP or a family member) that affected their decision. Intentions accurately predicted behaviour for women who did and did not intend to be vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women did not perceive themselves to be at increased risk for influenza and did not believe that influenza vaccination was a necessary preventative health measure. A lack of safety information about vaccination during pregnancy and inconsistent messages from HCPs were barriers to vaccine acceptance. Recommendations from maternity care providers and communication about the severity of and susceptibility to influenza for pregnant women would facilitate vaccine uptake.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207