Influenza vaccine coverage and factors associated with non-vaccination among adults at high risk for severe outcomes: An analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is recommended in Canada for older adults and those with underlying health conditions due to their increased risk of severe outcomes. Further research is needed to identify who within these groups is not receiving influenza vaccine to identify opportunities to increase coverage. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to 1) estimate influenza non-vaccination prevalence and 2) assess factors associated with non-vaccination among Canadian adults aged ≥65 and adults aged 46-64 with ≥1 chronic medical condition (CMC) due to their high risk of severe influenza outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected from 2015-2018 among participants of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. For both groups of interest, we estimated non-vaccination prevalence and used logistic regression models to identify factors associated with non-vaccination. We report adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the investigated variables. RESULTS: Overall, 29.5% (95% CI: 28.9%, 30.1%) of the 23,226 participants aged ≥65 years and 50.4% (95% CI: 49.4%, 51.3%) of the 11,250 participants aged 46-64 years with ≥1 CMC reported not receiving an influenza vaccination in the past 12 months. For both groups, lack of recent contact with a family doctor and current smoking were independently associated with non-vaccination. DISCUSSION: Influenza vaccination helps prevent severe influenza outcomes. Yet, half of adults aged 46-64 years with ≥1 CMC and more than one-quarter of all adults aged ≥65 years did not receive a recommended influenza vaccine in the year prior to the survey. Innovation in vaccination campaigns for routinely recommended vaccines, especially among those without annual family doctor visits, may improve coverage. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination coverage among Canadian adults aged 46-64 years with ≥1 CMC and adults aged ≥65 years remains suboptimal. Vaccination campaigns targeting those at high risk of severe outcomes without routine physician engagement should be evaluated to improve uptake.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".