Parental reports of vaccine information statement usage in Utah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the implementation in 1986, there is little research focused on vaccine information statements (VISs) use for vaccine education and parental perception. PURPOSE: To explore parental reports of dissemination and use of VISs. METHODS: Data for this pilot, cross-sectional, descriptive study were collected through an online survey in both English and Spanish. RESULTS: Responses from 130 parents in one school district were analyzed. Most participants (67.7%) reported getting vaccine information from a pediatric health care provider. A majority (71.5%) said that VISs were included in the vaccination process. Approximately one third of participants (37.7%) reported reading some or all the VIS before their child was vaccinated, and more than half (59.3%) read some or all the VIS after their child was vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: While promising that many parents reported receiving a VIS, more than one quarter of parents reported they did not. Inadequate time to read and understand VIS information before an immunization may lead to limited parental understanding. Although some participants reported struggling to understand VISs, more than half said that VISs were helpful and would read another in the future. IMPLICATIONS: Without appropriate use of vaccine education material, providers miss the opportunity to educate parents on the risks and benefits of vaccinating their children. Providers must be aware of literacy levels and vaccine attitudes and create appropriate opportunities for parents to read and learn about vaccines. VISs are valuable educational tools for patients and parents. Improvements are needed to improve both VIS clarity and dissemination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".