Barriers to adult vaccination in Canada: A qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In recent years, Canadian health care professionals have observed an increase in vaccine refusal. The objective of this study is to review published literature and identify the main themes related to vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in Canadian adults and recent immigrants. Methods: A qualitative systematic review was performed. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (1946 to January 2021) and EMBASE (1974 to January 2021) was conducted to identify existing literature that addressed the primary research question. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the study population involved 1) the general population, 2) Indigenous populations, 3) recent immigrants to Canada or 4) Canadian health care professionals. Results: Thirty-four studies were included with a focus on the general population ( n = 22), health care professionals ( n = 10) and recent immigrant populations ( n = 2). The most frequently reported barriers were lack of vaccine information (41%), lack of access to vaccination (38%), fear of adverse reactions (38%), financial reasons (29%), lack of awareness of vaccine existence (29%), antivaccine sentiments (24%), notion that older adults do not need vaccination (18%), misconceptions on vaccine effectiveness (12%), potential sexual health promotion stigma (6%) and fear of needles (3%). Interpretation: Barriers to vaccination among Canadians and recent immigrants continue to be a challenge in the health care system. Conclusions: The greatest yield in improving vaccination rates is likely to come from supporting vaccine-hesitant individuals in shifting their thinking to greater vaccine acceptance. Pharmacists are well positioned to address vaccine hesitancy and involvement through education, facilitation and administration of vaccines. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2022;155:xx-xx.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".