Missed Immunization Opportunities Among Children Under 5 Years Of Age Dwelling In Karachi City.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunization is the safest and effective measure for preventing and eradicating various communicable diseases. A glaring immunization gap exists between developing and industrialized countries towards immunization, because the developing countries including Pakistan are still striving to provide basic immunization to their children. The purpose of this study was to access the prevalence and factors of missing immunization among under 5-year children of Karachi.. METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted from June 2015 to October 2015 among different outpatient clinics of Karachi. Parents who had child less than 5 year of age were approached by non-probability purposive sampling. Data was analysed by using Statistical Package of Social Sciences. RESULTS: There were around 59.09% (n=156) and 64.43% (n=165) parents who have correctly responded regarding the number of essential immunization visit during the first and second year of their child life respectively. About 28.12% (n=108) parents responded that they do not know about the name and number of missed doses of vaccines. 31.78% (n=122) parents responded that their children have missed either one or more than one doses of routine immunization vaccines. Of which 34.42% (n=42) children have missed more than one vaccine. Lack of knowledge regarding immunization schedule 28.68% (n=34), concern about vaccine side effects 21.31%, (n=26), child sickness 17.21% (n=21), and lack of trust about government 10.65%, (n=13) were the major barriers identified by parents for missed immunization opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Parents have inadequate knowledge regarding routine immunization visits, immunization schedule and vaccine doses. The practices of parents for routine childhood immunization are also poor. Parents refuse to immunize their child because of lack of immunization visit knowledge and also because of their doubts regarding vaccine potency and side effects. A proper system of immunization promotion, advocacy and reminder systems with proper follow-up mechanism need to be developed by all healthcare centres.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".