MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969968622 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20180191

Impact of school vaccination mandates on pediatric vaccination coverage: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2969968622 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Devon Greyson, Chris Vriesema-Magnuson, Julie A. Bettinger

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationFamily medicineDocumentationPopulationMEDLINECINAHLEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionImmunologyPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mandated vaccination for school attendance is a growing strategy internationally. Our aim was to investigate the effects of implementing school vaccination mandates on pediatric population vaccine coverage. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and the PAIS Index for empirical studies of implementation of a primary or secondary school vaccination requirement published in any language through March 2019 with vaccination rates as an outcome. We sought additional studies by consulting experts, reference lists and grey literature sources. Included studies were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis; thus, we extracted data using a standardized rubric and synthesized the results narratively. RESULTS: Among the 4232 citations obtained, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen were conducted with US data, 1 with Italian data, and 1 with Australian data. Four studies examined school-entry mandates, and 16 examined adolescent requirements. An uncontrolled before-after design was used in 10 studies, cross-sectional analysis in 7, a retrospective cohort design in 2, and a prospective cohort in 1. In many cases, increased documentation of coverage followed the addition of new requirements. The exception to this was human papillomavirus vaccination mandates, which were highly controversial, in the United States. The studies contained notable risks of bias, with cointerventions rarely acknowledged or accounted for, and subpopulations often excluded. A substantial risk of ecological fallacy existed for most studies. INTERPRETATION: Vaccination mandates appear largely associated with increased vaccination coverage, but it is not possible to attribute causality to the mandate in most studies. High-quality implementation research that uses whole-population coverage data and takes into consideration cointerventions, confounders, clustering of unvaccinated populations and context is required.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207