Understanding the Impact of Approved but Unfunded Vaccine Status on Parental Acceptance of an Adjuvanted Seasonal Influenza Vaccine for Infants: Results from the Pediatric Influenza Vaccination Optimization Trial (PIVOT)–III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) provides enhanced protection against influenza for infants but is not publicly funded (NPF). The objective of this prospective cohort study of parents with children 6 through 23 months of age was to understand how NPF status influences parental perceptions of approved but unfunded vaccines and their intentions to vaccinate. At healthy baby visits, clinicians provided parents with information about influenza and vaccination. Before and after these interactions, a research nurse assessed parents' intentions to vaccinate their children and their beliefs about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of vaccinating their children with aTIV in both publicly funded (PF) and NPF settings. Overall, 15 community practice clinics (n = 15 physicians) and nine public health clinics (n = 9 nurses) recruited 207 parents. The percentage of parents intending to immunize their children with aTIV decreased from 72% (vaccine PF, free of charge), to 42% (NPF, $25 per dose), to 27% (NPF, $50 per dose). Funding status strongly influenced whether parents perceived immunization with aTIV to be necessary, safe, and effective. Information on influenza and influenza vaccines should be provided to parents routinely to allow for well-informed decisions on the suitability of specific influenza vaccines for their child.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".