New mothers’ key questions about child vaccinations from pregnancy through toddlerhood: Evidence from a qualitative longitudinal study in Victoria, British, Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's infant vaccination rate is suboptimal. British Columbia (BC) is below the targeted national coverage for infant vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy is a contributing factor in BC's low coverage rates. The literature suggests that many mothers are primary vaccine decision-makers and begin this decision process during pregnancy. This project examined mothers' vaccine concerns, vaccine information needs and preferences, and mother's trusted information sources regarding vaccines during early childhood. Using a qualitative, longitudinal design, interviews were conducted with women in four phases: during the third trimester of pregnancy, when the infant was 3–4 months, 9–12 months, and 15–18 months of age. Data analysis was thematic and both deductive and inductive coding techniques were utilized. Although most mothers in this study followed the BC infant vaccination schedule, many could be regarded as cautious acceptors. We identified five major themes. Three themes describe the questions mothers had about infant vaccination: 1) the vaccination schedule, 2) basic facts about vaccines, and 3) risks and benefits. Two themes described mothers’ information sources and preferences: 1) information sources, and 2) vaccine information delivery. Mothers indicated they wanted their concerns to be addressed in a safe, non-judgmental environment by health care providers. The questions and concerns identified by mothers in this study suggest that many mothers have unasked and unanswered questions about infant vaccines. Because health care providers are the favored source of vaccine information for pregnant people and new parents, they should receive continuous education on vaccines to raise their competency in addressing parental concerns.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".