MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306248079 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275923

Pneumococcal vaccination uptake and missed opportunities for vaccination among Canadian adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)

2022· article· en· W4306248079 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Giorgia Sulis, Valérie Rodrigue, Christina Wolfson, Jacqueline M. McMillan, Susan Kirkland, Melissa K. Andrew, Nicole E. Basta

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalLogistic regressionPneumococcal vaccinationCross-sectional studyInfluenza vaccineOddsPneumococcal vaccineCohortPediatricsDemographyImmunologyInternal medicineStreptococcus pneumoniae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In Canada, pneumococcal vaccination is recommended to all adults aged ≥65 and those <65 who have one or more chronic medical conditions (CMCs). Understanding vaccine uptake and its determinants among eligible groups has important implications for reducing the burden of pneumococcal disease. METHODS: Using data from a large national cohort of Canadian residents aged ≥47 years between 2015-2018, we calculated self-reported pneumococcal vaccine uptake among eligible groups, estimated associations between key factors and non-vaccination, assessed missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) and examined risk factors for MOV. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for relevant associations were estimated through logistic regression. RESULTS: 45.8% (95% CI: 45.2-46.5) of 22,246 participants aged ≥65 and 81.3% (95% CI: 80.5-82.0) of 10,815 individuals aged 47-64 with ≥1 CMC reported never having received a pneumococcal vaccine. Receipt of influenza vaccination in the previous year was associated with the lowest odds of pneumococcal non-vaccination (aOR = 0.14 [95% CI: 0.13-0.15] for older adults and aOR = 0.23 [95% CI: 0.20-0.26] for those aged 47-64 with ≥1 CMC). Pneumococcal vaccine uptake was also more likely in case of contact with a family doctor in the previous year (versus no contact), increased with age and varied widely across provinces. Among individuals recently vaccinated against influenza, 32.6% (95% CI: 31.9-33.4) of those aged ≥65 and 71.1% (95% CI: 69.9-72.3) of those aged 47-64 with ≥1 CMC missed an opportunity to get a pneumococcal vaccine. Among individuals who had contact with a family doctor, 44.8% (95% CI: 44.1-45.5) of those aged ≥65 and 80.4% (95% CI: 79.6-81.2) of those aged 47-64 with ≥1 CMC experienced a MOV. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumococcal vaccine uptake remains suboptimal among at-risk Canadian adults who are eligible for vaccination. Further research is needed to clarify the reasons behind missed opportunities for vaccination and adequately address the main barriers to pneumococcal 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207