How do mothers’ vaccine attitudes change over time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many interventions aim to reduce parents' hesitancy about childhood vaccinations, parents' experiences of vaccine attitude change trajectories remain underexplored. This constructivist grounded theory study examines trajectories of change in vaccine confidence and uptake among mothers in the Greater Vancouver region of Canada. Specifically, we explored what mothers identified as causes and facilitators to these changes, the processes involved, and how they experienced these changes in the contexts of their parenting lives. The study population comprised 23 mothers (mean age 41.3 years), each with at least one child aged 6–12 years. Nine (39%) had become more confident in vaccines, 10 (43%) more hesitant, and four (17%) experienced multiple changes over time. Trajectories of growing vaccine confidence were portrayed by participants as cognitive journeys, moving toward facts and away from fear, and influenced by a participant's growing knowledge and experience. Trajectories of increased hesitancy about vaccination involved underlying concerns about vaccines that were augmented by negative peer attitudes or negative personal experiences with vaccination or health care. In both trajectories, a mother's growing confidence as a parent was perceived as empowering her to make decisions over time. Mothers with multiple changes in vaccine attitudes either had hesitations about specific vaccines, which were allayed over time, or experienced negative vaccine reactions that caused them to pause, then later resume, vaccination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".