MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309865363 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277876

Trends, barriers and enablers to measles immunisation coverage in Saskatchewan, Canada: A mixed methods study

2022· article· en· W4309865363 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marcus M. Ilesanmi, Sylvia Abonyi, Punam Pahwa, Volker Gerdts, Michael Scwandt, Cordell Neudorf

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMeaslesVaccinationMedicineThematic analysisMeasles vaccinePopulationDemographyHealth careEnvironmental healthQualitative researchFamily medicinePolitical scienceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many social, cultural, and systemic challenges affect the uptake of measles immunisation services. Prior studies have looked at the caregivers' perspectives, but little is known about the perspectives of the health care providers on the barriers of measles immunisation services in Canada. This study examined measles immunisation coverage trends across the regional health authorities in Saskatchewan and explored the barriers and enablers to measles immunisation coverage from providers' perspectives. The study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed method. We utilized the entire population of 16,582 children under two years of age available in the Saskatchewan Immunisation Management System (SIMS) registry for 2002 and 2013 in aggregate format and interviewed 18 key informants in pre-determined two-stages in 2016 and 2017. The quantitative analysis was done with Joinpoint regression modelling, while the qualitative interview data was analyzed using hybrid inductive and deductive thematic approaches. There was a 16.89%-point increase in measles immunisation coverage in the province from 56.32% to 73.21% between 2002 and 2013. There was also a persistently higher coverage among the affluent (66.95% - 82.37%) than the most deprived individuals (45.79% - 62.60%) in the study period. The annual rate of coverage change was marginally higher among the most deprived (16.81%; and average annual percentage change (AAPC) 2.0, 95% CI 1.7-2.2) than among the affluent group (15.42% and AAPC 3.0; 95% CI 2.0-4.0). While access-related issues, caregivers' fears, hesitancy, anti-vaccination challenges, and resource limitations were barriers to immunisation, improving community engagement, service delivery flexibility, targeted social responses and increasing media role were found useful to address the uptake of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases immunisation. There is low coverage and inequity in measles immunisation uptake in Saskatchewan from social and institutional barriers. Even though there is evidence of disparity reduction among the different groups, the barriers to increasing measles immunisation coverage have implications for the health of the socio-economically deprived groups, the healthcare system and other vaccination programs. There is a need to improve policy framework for community engagement, targeted programs, and public health discourse.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207