Parental Immunisation Needs and Attitudes Survey in paediatric hospital clinics and community maternal and child health centres in Melbourne, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Despite Australia's high vaccination rates, an estimated 3.3% of children are under-vaccinated due to vaccine refusal and the proportion of parents with concerns is unclear. Amongst Australian parents, we aimed to determine the prevalence of vaccine concerns, resources and health-care providers (HCPs) accessed and satisfaction with these resources in two different settings. We also aimed to identify relationships between the level of vaccine concern, socio-economic status and vaccine uptake. METHODS: Parents of children under 5 years attending general paediatric clinics in a tertiary paediatric hospital (n = 301/398, 76%) and children under 19 months attending community maternal child health centres (n = 311/391, 81%) completed the survey. Vaccination status was obtained from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. RESULTS: Despite high support for vaccination (98%, confidence interval (CI) 97-99), 43% of parents reported vaccine concerns (CI 40-47) including the number of vaccines given in the first 2 years (25%, CI 22 to 29), vaccine ingredients (22%, CI 19-25), allergies (18%, CI 15-21), weakening of the immune system (17%, CI 14-20) and autism (11%, CI 8-13). HCPs were the most commonly accessed and trusted information source. In all, 23% of parents reported insufficient knowledge to make good vaccination decisions (CI 20-26). There was little evidence of an association between parental vaccine acceptance or socio-economic status and vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high support for vaccines, nearly half of Australian parents have some concerns and a quarter lack vaccine decision-making confidence regarding childhood vaccines. Parents frequently access and report high trust in HCPs, who are best placed to address parental vaccine concerns through provision of clear information, using effective communication strategies. Further research in more highly hesitant populations is required to determine the relationship between the level and nature of vaccination concerns and 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".