Parental Attitudes and Perceptions of Support after Brief Clinician Intervention Predict Intentions to Accept the Adjuvanted Seasonal Influenza Vaccination: Findings from the Pediatric Influenza Vaccination Optimization Trial (PIVOT)–I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) provides enhanced protection against seasonal influenza in children compared with nonadjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). This prospective cohort study assessed parental attitudes, beliefs, and intentions to vaccinate their infants aged 6-23 months with aTIV. Parents were surveyed before and after routine healthy baby visits, and post clinician interaction results were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Physicians at 15 community practice clinics and nurses at 3 public health clinics participated; 207 parents were surveyed. After clinician consultation, most parents considered immunization with aTIV to be safe (72.9%), effective (69.6%), and important (69.0%); most perceived support for vaccination from significant others (62.8%) and clinicians (81.6%); and 66.6% intended to vaccinate their infant with aTIV. Parental attitudes toward vaccinating their infant with aTIV were strongly correlated with perceptions of vaccine safety, efficacy, and importance, and these represented the strongest influence on intentions to vaccinate (odds ratio (OR) 79.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.05-1037.50). Parental intentions were further influenced by perceived strength of clinician recommendation (OR 4.55, 95% CI 1.38-15.06) and social support for vaccination (OR 3.46, 95% CI 0.50-24.13). These findings may inform clinician approaches to parental education to ensure optimal seasonal pediatric influenza 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".