Attitudes and Beliefs of Pregnant Women and New Mothers Regarding Influenza Vaccination in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".