A Systematic Review of the Rationale for Vaccine Hesitancy among American Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vaccines are one of the most successful interventions in the history of public health. They are largely responsible for the near eradication of several diseases. However, some people are vaccination averse which can lead to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitant parents are those that refuse or delay getting their children vaccinated despite the availability of vaccination services. This phenomenon often occurs despite parent’s belief that vaccines are effective. The purpose of this review was to exam available literature to identify predictors of vaccine hesitancy among parents and parental rationale for vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: This literature review utilized the SCOPUS database to identify articles examining vaccine hesitancy among American parents, published from 1997 to 2020, inclusive. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was utilized to select articles used in the final literature review. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles were included in the final review. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy included demographics (income, education, marital status, race/ethnicity), healthcare practices (provider relationship, use of complementary or alternative medicine), and social-cultural factors. Parental rationale for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about the safety of vaccinations, not fearing diseases covered by vaccinations, and the belief that vaccines were not necessary. The most consistent and prevalent theme of vaccination hesitancy was the strength of the influence that the medical provider has on the parents. CONCLUSION: Balanced communication with a trusted medical provider that addresses both the benefits and risk of vaccinations, along with parents’ concerns about safety are important factors to reduce vaccine hesitancy among parents.
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 | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".