Parental gender differences in attitudes and willingness to vaccinate against <scp>COVID</scp>‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: COVID-19 affects family life world-wide. Determinants of hesitancy around vaccinating children against COVID-19 are critical in guiding public health campaigns. Gender differences among parents may determine willingness to vaccinate children against COVID-19. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 Parental Attitude Study (COVIPAS) surveying care givers of children presenting for emergency care in 17 sites in 6 countries during peak pandemic (March-June, 2020). We assessed risk perceptions, vaccination history and plans to vaccinate children against COVID-19 once available. We compared responses given by father or mother and used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2025 (75.4%) surveys were completed by mothers and 662 (24.6%) by fathers, 60 did not respond to question about future vaccination. Of 2627, 1721 (65.5%) were willing to vaccinate their children. In the multivariable analysis, both fathers and mothers were more willing to vaccinate their child if the parent was older and believed that social distancing is worthwhile, and if their child was up-to-date on childhood vaccines (odds ratio (OR) of 1.02, 3.90, 1.65 for mothers and 1.04, 4.76, 2.87 for fathers, respectively). Mothers (but not fathers) were more willing if they had more than a high school education (OR 1.38), and fathers (but not mothers) were more willing to vaccinate their male children (OR 1.62), compared to female children. CONCLUSION: Unique differences between mothers and fathers underscore the need to view vaccine hesitancy as an acceptable parental response. Public health should plan targeted educational information for parents about a COVID-19 vaccine for children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".