Factors associated with parents’ willingness to enroll their children in trials for COVID-19 vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken an unprecedented global toll and vaccination is needed to restore healthy living. Timely inclusion of children in vaccination trials is critical. We surveyed caregivers of children seeking care in 17 Emergency Departments (ED) across 6 countries during the peak of the pandemic to identify factors associated with intent to participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials. Questions about child and parent characteristics, COVID-19 expressed concerns and parental attitudes toward participation in a trial were asked.Of 2768 completed surveys, 18.4% parents stated they would enroll their child in a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine and 14.4% would agree to a randomized placebo-controlled study. Factors associated with willingness to participate were parents agreeing to enroll in a COVID-19 vaccine trial themselves (Odds Ratio (OR) 32.9, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (21.9-51.2)) having an older child (OR 1.0 (1.0-1.01)), having children who received all vaccinations based on their country schedule (OR 2.67 (1.35-5.71)) and parents with high school education or lower (OR 1.79 (1.18-2.74)). Mothers were less likely to enroll their child in a trial (OR 0.68 (0.47-0.97)). Only one fifth of families surveyed will consider enrolling their child in a vaccine trial. Parental interest in participation, history of vaccinating their child, and the child being older all are associated with parents allowing their child to participate in a COVID vaccine trial. This information may help decision-makers and researchers shape their strategies for trial design and participation engagement in upcoming COVID19 vaccination trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".