To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Women’s perception of vaccination in pregnancy: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccination against influenza and pertussis in pregnancy can reduce the significant morbidity and mortality associated with these infections. Despite this, there is poor uptake of both vaccines in pregnancy. AIM: To explore women's perception of vaccination in pregnancy and thereby determine the reasons behind such low vaccination rates. DESIGN & SETTING: This is a qualitative study undertaken at a large maternity hospital. METHOD: Seventeen post-partum women completed a semi-structured interview discussing vaccination. They were recruited from a quantitative study looking at vaccination rates in pregnancy. The interview transcripts were discussed among three researchers and underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged. The first theme explored the influencing factors that shaped the women's decision to vaccinate in pregnancy. The recommendation of a healthcare provider was the most important influencing factor for this study's cohort of women. The second theme highlighted the deficiency in knowledge women had regarding vaccine safety. The last theme related to the pertussis vaccine, and the reluctance of healthcare providers to discuss and offer this vaccine in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The qualitative approach gives voice to the thoughts and concerns of women as they make the complex decision to vaccinate in pregnancy. Clinicians must be cognizant of the important role they play in advising women to vaccinate in pregnancy. They must advise women that the vaccine is safe and address any of their concerns. Lastly, a message on vaccine safety should be included in future public health campaigns to promote vaccination in pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".