Parents’ Experiences and Nurses’ Perceptions of Decision-Making About Childhood Immunization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunization in Canada is recommended not mandated, granting parents discretionary decision-making power regarding their child's immunization status. Uptake of childhood immunization at present falls below national targets. Nurses who interact with parents in the clinical setting may witness parents' decision-making experiences, attitudes, and opinions inclusive of vaccine hesitancy. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to understand parents' and nurses' experiences of decision-making about childhood immunization, specifically measles-mumps-rubella and/or diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis. METHODS: Thorne's interpretative description approach was used to understand parents' and nurses' experiences and perspectives about immunization. The sample was 6 nurses and 16 parents residing in northeastern Ontario. RESULTS: Common to all participants was the goal of protection. Motivated by child protection, parents carried out three broad actions, searching for information, deliberating the information and sources to determine the relative benefits and risks of immunization, and bearing responsibility for their decision to accept, delay, or decline immunization. Nurses were motivated by child protection and population health. CONCLUSION: Implications for nursing included integration of immunization competencies in nursing curricula, ongoing professional development, validation of parental actions for child protection, nurse-led education sessions, and engaging parents through social media to support access to reputable information.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".