MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3005566225 · doi:10.7759/cureus.7015

Personal Opinions Seem to be the Major Contributor to the Influenza Vaccination Disparity in Sneedville, TN

2020· article· en· W3005566225 on OpenAlexaff
Jacek Bednarz, Daniel Mok, Jan D. Zieren, Theresa M Ferguson, José Manuel Gómez-García, Jordan Glass, Melanie McCown, Kelcie Smith, Brian Yonish, Aveesha C Bodoe

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleMedicineVaccinationInfluenza vaccineScale (ratio)Family medicineDemographyImmunologyStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relevance Although the seasonal flu vaccine remains the most effective way to prevent the spread of influenza and reduce its associated mortalities, the proportion of individuals receiving the vaccine continues to be an issue in various communities across the United States. The attitudes of residents who live in Sneedville, a small town in a rural northeastern Tennessee, were surveyed. Objective(s) To determine the barriers to influenza vaccination in Sneedville, Tennessee and contribute to the literature on why some rural communities across the United States show low influenza vaccination rates. Materials and Methods Door-to-door convenience sampling was conducted in Sneedville, TN. Participants were asked to complete a survey consisting of --three yes or no demographic questions (one with an option to further elaborate) and nine opinion questions based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Participants were not provided any additional details pertaining to the Likert scale questions and were given the option to skip the Likert scale questions. These questions were chosen to gauge the potential structural, socioeconomic, belief, and provider-related barriers to vaccination. Two-tailed independent t-tests were used to compare the Likert scale means for each of the nine opinion questions in those that received the influenza vaccine and those who did not. Univariate analysis was conducted to assess difference in the distribution of Likert responses in vaccinators compared to non-vaccinators. Results This project surveyed 172 residents of which 60.5% (104/172) indicated that they did not receive the influenza vaccine for the 2017-2018 flu season. Compared to individuals who vaccinate against the flu, individuals who do not vaccinate against the flu believe the flu shot is not worthwhile and believe the flu shot has a greater chance to make them sick. Conclusions This study finds that structural, socioeconomic, and provider-related barriers are not the underlying cause of the low influenza vaccination rates in this rural area. Instead, public opinion on influenza vaccination seems to be the reason for the disparity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→