Examination of the British Columbia influenza prevention policy for healthcare workers: Phase 1 qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 2012, British Columbia became the first Canadian province to implement a province-wide Influenza Prevention Policy requiring all healthcare workers (HCWs) in residential and acute care facilities to either be immunized against influenza, or wear masks in patient care areas during the influenza season. This qualitative case study sought to understand the key facilitators and barriers involved in developing and implementing British Columbia's Influenza Prevention Policy. An explanatory qualitative case study approach was selected for this project. Data were collected through the review of 110 documents (policy and planning documents, implementation tools, press releases, communication materials, etc.), and through 7 focus groups with policy implementation team members (n = 48). Focus group interview transcripts were analyzed using Framework Analysis methods, and Prior's approach guided document analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) Clashing paradigms, (2) Policy implementation gaps, (3) Pathways of power, and (4) Personal impacts. Issues embedded in macro-, meso-, and micro-level contexts, and planning across the province, were identified as critical to policy implementation. A province-wide approach with senior-level engagement and dedicated resources is critical in a province-wide influenza prevention policy for HCW. Recommendations to improve large-scale implementation of condition-of-service influenza policies include: engaging stakeholders early, considering the complexity of political contexts, allotting time to plan appropriately, developing 'enforcement' plans, and providing education and skills to frontline providers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".