Exploring vaccination practices of midwives in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Registered midwives in British Columbia (BC) are primary health care practitioners for healthy people throughout pregnancy and for approximately 6 weeks postpartum. BC registered midwives are authorized to prescribe and administer certain vaccines to adults under their care during the perinatal period and hepatitis B vaccine to high-risk newborns. However, little has been documented about their recommendations for, and administration of, prenatal and infant vaccinations. This study surveyed midwives currently practicing in British Columbia to understand their vaccination practices. METHODS: An online survey was administered to the members of the Midwives Association of BC in spring 2018. Outcome measures were the proportion of midwives who discussed, recommended, and administered the following vaccines: influenza, varicella, rubella, and infant hepatitis B. The proportion of midwives who discussed and recommended infant vaccines was measured. Barriers to discussion, recommendation, and administration of vaccines were captured. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 108 respondents administered vaccines to their clients. Hepatitis B and rubella were the most frequent vaccines administered. Logistical concerns were the greatest barrier to vaccine administration. This was followed by the perception that vaccine administration is not within the scope of practice of midwives, especially for influenza vaccine. Midwives who administered vaccines were significantly more likely to discuss and recommend vaccines to their clients and their infants. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of BC midwives discuss, recommend, and administer vaccines to their clients. Our survey highlighted key areas to address to strengthen midwifery capacity to discuss, recommend, and provide prenatal and infant vaccines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".