Support for policy options to increase vaccination coverage in British Columbia, Canada: an electronic survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motivated by concerns of inadequate vaccination coverage and the potential for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, Canadian provinces have been discussing, implementing and tightening policies requiring documentation of vaccination for school enrolment. We sought to understand the acceptability of 14 potential vaccination policy levers among parents and other adults in British Columbia. METHODS: A representative online panel of 1308 adults in BC was surveyed in April 2017. Respondents were representative of the BC population by sex, age, geographic residence and percentage of household with children younger than 19 years. We used Poisson regression to estimate predictors of policy endorsement. RESULTS: Most respondents (> 80%) held positive attitudes toward vaccination. Policies such as mandatory documentation of vaccination at school entry were supported by more than 75% of all respondents. Punitive policies, such as denial of child tax benefits for nonvaccination, were supported by less than 40% of respondents. In multivariable regression, respondents with positive attitudes toward vaccination were significantly more likely to strongly support all potential policies. Additionally, female respondents and respondents with postsecondary education were significantly more likely to strongly support policies involving additional requirements for parents. INTERPRETATION: Most adults in BC held favourable attitudes toward vaccination, and strong support existed for policies designed to support vaccination. This study provides evidence that most adults in BC are supportive of vaccination and, when presented with a wide range of options, would likely be supportive of information and requirement policy options designed to increase vaccination uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".