MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209889854 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.153

O-366 Vaccine Hesitancy among Canadian Paramedics during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3209889854 on OpenAlexaffabout
D.H. O’Neill, Tracy L Kirkham, Paul A. Demers, Christopher Macdonald, Brian Grunau, Julie A. Bettinger, David A. Goldfarb, Jennie Helmer

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakFamily medicineMedical emergencyVirologyInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Paramedics may be at an increased risk of interacting with COVID-19-positive individuals, making understanding the factors that influence paramedics’ vaccination decisions increasingly important. Objectives We aim to investigate factors that may influence paramedics’ likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. Methods Canadian paramedics from five provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan) working during the COVID-19 pandemic were voluntarily recruited through posters, social media, and emails from collaborating paramedic organizations. Participants completed online questionnaires between January and May of 2021 that assessed COVID-19 vaccine status, vaccine hesitancy, and intent to be vaccinated. Differences in proportions tests were used to compare agreement scores, calculated by combining proportions of participants who responded ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ to questionnaire items. Results Of the 2178 paramedics recruited, 95.7% completed the questionnaire (76.6% vaccinated). While most participants (89.4%) agreed that people should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and that vaccinations are necessary (94.7%), fewer participants agreed that COVID-19 vaccines are safe (78.5%) as compared to routine vaccines (86.1%, p<0.001), such as influenza vaccinations. However, vaccinated participants were more likely than unvaccinated participants to agree that routine vaccines are safe (90.5% vs. 76.2%, p<0.001) and that COVID-19 vaccines are safe (87.3% vs. 52.4%, p<0.001). Unvaccinated participants were more likely than vaccinated participants to report no intention of being vaccinated (14.2% vs. 0.1%, p<0.001), to report that they would get vaccinated but would wait (22.5% vs. 9.4%, p<0.001), and to report competing priorities were preventing them from getting vaccinated (9.0% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001). Vaccinated participants were more likely to report that they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if recommended by public health experts (90.5% vs. 55.9%, p<0.001). Conclusion Most paramedics believe COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and necessary. However, a sizeable proportion of paramedics reported no intention of getting vaccinated. Further analyses are needed to determine which factors influence their vaccination decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207