A multicentre Canadian survey of caregiver perspectives on COVID vaccine-related pain and stress for their family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Caregiver hesitancy for their children to receive the COVID-19 vaccine remains due to concerns regarding safety and efficacy, but also due to fear of vaccine administration-related pain and distress. Study objectives were to determine caregivers’ perceptions regarding both their personal and child’s COVID-19 vaccine administration-related stress and fear and relate this to their likelihood to allow their child to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Methods: This study was a secondary data analysis of a multicentre, cross-sectional survey of caregivers presenting to four Canadian pediatric emergency departments. Caregivers were surveyed between December 2020 and March 2021 and completed a digital survey on their own smartphones. Results: 331 caregivers responded to the survey (mean age 39.9 years [SD 7.71]); 74.2% (245/331) were mothers. Children’s mean age was 8.8 years [SD 5.4]; 49.8% (165/331) were female. 64.1% (209/326) of caregivers were willing to vaccinate their child against COVID-19, while 35.9% (117/326) were not. Greater perceived COVID-19 vaccine administration-related pain (0.88 [0.80; 0.95], p = .003) and stress (0.82 [0.76; 0.89], p = <.001) for their child as well as greater perceived personal stress with their own COVID-19 vaccine administration (0.81 [0.75; 0.88], p = <.001) were associated with caregivers being less likely to vaccinate their child. Conclusions: During the time period between COVID-19 pandemic waves 2 and 3, and after the vaccine had been federally approved for adults, one-third of Canadian caregivers surveyed reported being unwilling to vaccinate their child against COVID-19 in the future. Managing children’s and caregivers’ vaccine administration-related fear and stress may improve vaccine uptake 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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".