Parental experiences of caring for their preschool children after declining vaccines: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will explore the experiences of parents after making the decision not to vaccinate their young children. This review aims to help health care providers understand parents' specific care strategies for their under-vaccinated or unvaccinated young children. INTRODUCTION: Much of the current qualitative research literature on parents who hesitate or refuse to vaccinate their young children focuses on parental perceptions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and decision-making. However, limited attention has been paid to measures taken by parents to help their young children avoid contracting communicable diseases, promote resistance, and enhance their children's health. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative studies that describe parents' experiences of caring for their young children, aged 0 to six years, after making the decision not to vaccinate. Studies undertaken in any context will be considered. Studies that focus on young children who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated for reasons not related to parental refusal will be excluded. METHODS: The JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence will be followed. Databases will be searched from 1998 onwards, and will include Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, with no language limits. Following critical appraisal, findings that describe parental experiences and the care activities they perform related to their young children will be extracted. The JBI process of meta-aggregation will be used to identify categories and synthesize findings. The ConQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021241781.
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 | 0.111 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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".