MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092274054 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.475

Mandatory immunization: Empirical examination of governance instruments in 28 Global NITAG Network (GNN) countries

2020· article· en· W3092274054 on OpenAlexaff
Noni E. MacDonald, Shawn Harmon, David Faour, Janice Graham, Christoph A. Steffen, Louise Henaff, Stephanie Shendale

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationEnforcementLegislationVaccinationSanctionsMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2017 Assessment Report, WHO's SAGE noted need to understand ways in which legislation and regulation are used to advance or undermine immunization. The NITAG Environmental Scan Project sought to address this in a pilot study. Methods Data was collected via a secure online survey of GNN members (40 countries Sept 2018). Respondents reporting a mandatory element were asked: (1) what vaccinations were required by law; and (2) what population groups were subject to mandates; (3) what grounds, if any, were available for requesting exemptions. Results 28 (70%) countries responded, representing every WHO region and World Bank income level. While mandatory immunization programs / elements within broader NIPs were relatively common, jurisdictions varied with respect to immunizations required, population groups affected, grounds for exemptions, and penalties for non-compliance. We observed some loose associations with geography and income level. Children were the most common population group subject to mandates at some stage of childhood development (28/28); healthcare workers were second (8/15 (53%)). Sanctions for failure to immunize varied broadly, ranging from no penalty, to loss of access to social services e.g. admission to school, monetary fines, and incarceration. A variance between countries as to how strictly immunization mandates are enforced was noted. Conclusions A variety of approaches existed ranging from Narrow/Permissive to Broad/ Inclusive in scope with enforcement mapping loosely to this continuum from Loose/Permissive to Tight/Coercive. Jurisdictions with few/no vaccines mandated, and few/no target groups identified, Loose approach is expected; for those closer to Broad approach, Tighter controls expected. Coercive measures may be 'positive' (vaccination as a gateway to public services, with possible work-arounds), or 'negative' (failure to vaccinate = penalties).

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)0.029
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.333
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207