MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921626204 · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6468-z

Promoting vaccination in the province of Québec: the PromoVaQ randomized controlled trial protocol

2019· article· en· W2921626204 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Arnaud Gagneur, Caroline Quach, François D. Boucher, Bruce Tapiéro, Philippe De Wals, Anne Farrands, Thomas Lemaître, Nicole Boulianne, Chantal Sauvageau, Moussa Ouakki, Virginie Gosselin, Dominique Gagnon, Geneviève Petit, Marie‐Claude Jacques, Ève Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsVaccinationRandomized controlled trialPublic healthPsychosocialFamily medicineLogistic regressionIntervention (counseling)Vaccine trialMotivational interviewingEnvironmental healthDemographyNursingImmunologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vaccination has a huge public health impact. Maintaining vaccine coverage is key to avoid the devastating consequences of resurgence. In the Province of Québec, vaccine coverage in young children are sub-optimal, mostly due to ambivalence toward vaccine safety and efficacy. We previously conducted a regional study in the Québec's Eastern Townships region, the PromoVac Study, to test a new educational intervention, based on motivational interviewing techniques, aimed at promoting infant vaccination. This first study evidenced that the intervention led to a marked increase in mothers' intention to vaccinate, and vaccine coverage in their infants. The current study protocol aims at scaling up these results at a provincial level using a randomized controlled trial design. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing to an educational intervention, including the distribution of an information flyer as standard of care on vaccination coverage in four maternity wards across the Province of Québec (PromovaQ). Adult mothers of children born in participating maternity wards were recruited between March 2014 and February 2015. Vaccination coverage will be assessed at 3-years of age, thus the trial is expected to be completed in March 2019. Statistical analyses will be conducted under the intention-to-treat principle. Vaccine coverage will be analyzed using Chi-squared distribution testing and logistic regression to identify determinant factors. Secondary outcomes will include vaccine hesitation and intention scores, mother's knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about immunization, and psychosocial determinants of intention to vaccinate. DISCUSSION: In the case results of this Provincial RCT be confirmed, serious consideration should then be given by Ministry of Health authorities to the possible implementation of MI-based strategies across provincial maternity wards. To ensure adequate input and secure implementation, study design and results will be reviewed with relevant stakeholders, including the children's families, and provincial and regional decision-makers. Results will be adapted and shared with all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02666872 (Retrospectively registered as January 28, 2016).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207