Impact of a vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interview techniques on long-term vaccine coverage: the PromoVac strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed vaccinations at 2, 4, and 6 months are associated with a higher probability of delayed age-appropriate vaccination during childhood. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an information session on immunization during infancy. METHODS: An individual educational information session with motivational interview techniques for immunization of infants was conducted (experimental group) or not conducted (control group) during postpartum stay in a quasi-experimental cohort study. Immunization data were collected from the Eastern Townships Public Health registry at 3, 5, 7, 13, 19, and 24 months of age. Logistic regressions with repeated measures were performed to assess the intervention's impact. Relative risks (RR) were estimated. A multivariate model was obtained adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: The experimental and control groups included 1140 and 1249 families, respectively. In per protocol analysis, a significant increase in VC of 3.2, 4.9, 7.3, 6.7, 10.6, and 5.1% was observed at 3, 5, 7, 13, 19, and 24 months. Children from experimental group had 9% more chance at a complete vaccination status between 3 and 24 months compared to children from control group (RR (95% CI): 1.09 (1.05-1.13), p < .001). Children with complete vaccination status at 3 months were more likely to have a complete vaccination status at 24 months (82.3 vs. 48.1%, RR (95% CI): 2.72 (2.28-3.24), p < .001). After adjustment, the estimated RR of the intervention's impact was 1.05 (1.02-1.07), p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: An educational information session about immunization based on motivational interview techniques conducted during postpartum hospitalization could improve immunization during infancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".