Public awareness, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding the role of pharmacists as immunizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccine coverage is below desired levels in Canada, despite National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations. One solution to improve coverage is to offer vaccines in pharmacies. We explore the awareness, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of the general public in four communities in Nova Scotia (NS) and New Brunswick (NB) about the changing role of pharmacists as immunizers. Adult members of the public were invited to complete an online survey through advertisements in print and online, and through e-mail lists at local universities. Immunization status among participants (n = 985) varied across vaccines with slightly more than one-half of the participants (51.8%) reporting receipt of a seasonal influenza vaccine last year, 38.0% reporting receipt of the meningococcal C or ACWY vaccine, and 77.7% reporting receipt of the pertussis vaccine. Despite variable self-reported receipt of vaccines, the pervasive belief that participants were not at risk of getting vaccine-preventable diseases, and a lack of awareness about which vaccines are recommended for adults, participants in this study held vaccine-positive beliefs. Participants, especially those who had previously been vaccinated in a pharmacy (39.0%), were supportive of the inclusion of pharmacists as immunizers although nearly one-half of the participants would feel more comfortable getting vaccinated by a pharmacist if another practitioner recommended it to them. While cost threatens to be a barrier to pharmacists as immunizers, this study suggests that they are well-positioned to improve vaccine coverage and to communicate recommendations and other vaccine-related information to the public.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".