MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758919455 · doi:10.3138/jammi.2.1.001

Health care providers’ recommendations and influenza vaccination during pregnancy: A Québec survey

2017· article· en· W2758919455 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michaël Desjardins, Caroline Paquet, Isabelle Boucoiran, Céline Laferrière, Anne Gosselin-Brisson, Annie‐Claude Labbé, Valérie Martel‐Laferrière

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCegep de Saint JeromeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationFamily medicinePregnancyHealth careObstetrics and gynaecologyInfluenza vaccineObstetricsGynecologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Seasonal influenza is associated with high morbidity and mortality among pregnant women. Inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended for all pregnant women. Our study evaluated health care providers’ compliance with current Québec guidelines and their estimation of vaccine acceptance among the pregnant women they care for. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to 1,084 health care providers, including general practitioners (GP), obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYN), midwives, and nurse practitioners (NP), in Québec who followed at least one pregnant woman in the past year and who could be reached by their professional association by email. The survey was available online (via SurveyMonkey) between January 15 and February 15, 2015. Results: A total of 344/1,084 health care providers (32%) answered the survey: 134/250 GPs (54%), 91/497 OBGYNs (18%), 76/186 midwives (40%), and 43/150 NPs (29%). Overall, 60% of participants reported following current recommendations. Provider’s age <40 years old (54% versus 67%; p=0.02), low number of pregnancies followed per year (<50: 35% versus ≥50: 73%; p<0.001), and having a non-academic practice (54% vs 66%; p=0.03) were associated with lower compliance with guidelines. Compliance with vaccination recommendations differed between professions (OBGYNs: 80%, NPs: 72%, GPs: 67%, midwives: 12%; p<0.001). According to participants, about 40% of women accept vaccination when offered, and their reasons for refusing vaccination were mostly efficacy and safety issues. Conclusions: Québec faces major barriers to influenza vaccination of pregnant women: health care professionals report low compliance with guidelines, and they perceive and report that women are reluctant to accept vaccination. Action should be taken to increase vaccination offers by health care workers to pregnant women, with the aim of increasing the influenza immunization rate in this population.

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)0.004
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207