Parents and health professionals’ opinions on information tools on mandatory childhood vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background South-eastern France is marked by insufficient vaccination coverage for several vaccines and some mistrust of its population towards vaccination. In this context and given the application of new vaccination obligations for early childhood, we carried out a qualitative survey to study opinions of parents and health professionals (HPs) on information tools on vaccination (ITV). Methods An inventory of French existing ITV was conducted to select a diverse set of 17 ITV for our qualitative evaluation. In 2018, we carried out 26 individual interviews with parents of young children (recruited in nurseries and kindergartens) and 5 focus groups with HPs (nurses, general practitioners, midwives and pediatricians; n = 33). Results Most parents appreciated videos for their convenience: they used them to discover new/complex subjects in an entertaining way. Paper ITV remained essential mostly among parents with high socio-economic status (SES) or marked vaccine hesitancy, who also requested detailed information and scientific sources. Some parents of low SES considered ITV difficult to understand because of their length, quantity of information and scientific language. For HPs, giving their patients a paper ITV is a way to show the importance they attach to their patient’s questions. HPs reported reluctance using videos during consultations. Some HPs stated their need for guidance on two aspects: 1) key discussion points to use when giving an ITV to parents and 2) most appropriate timing to give ITVs: prescription, injection… Conclusions In the pool of tested ITV, articulation and formatting of arguments are not always optimal for HP and parents use. Tailored ITV should be available for the different needs of HP and parents, especially, for the latter, according to their SES and hesitancy profiles. ITV adapted to use during consultation are necessary. Key messages Information tools on vaccination (ITV) are not always optimal for HP and parents use. ITV should be tested and better adapted to the patient profile and consultation context.
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 | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".