COVID vaccine evaluation of barriers and resources among families of children with diagnosed allergies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to determine vaccine hesitancy and the main barriers associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) vaccination among families of children diagnosed with food/drug/environmental allergies. Methods: Between May and June 2021, we approached 146 families seen at the outpatient allergy clinic at the Montreal Children's Hospital and a community allergy practice were invited to complete an anonymous online survey on COVID-19 and vaccination attitudes and behaviour. Uni and multivariable logistic regressions were compared to estimate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results: Among all patients, 24.1% reported vaccine hesitancy. The large majority of parents (95.2%) believed that vaccines work. The most common barrier to vaccination was fear of adverse side effects (57.0%). One-third of participants (31.5%) reported that a history of food, venom and drug allergy was a contraindication for COVID-19 vaccination. Fifty-nine (60.8%) participants stated that the dissemination of additional information would increase their willingness to be vaccinated. Most (96.9%) parents reported that their children's vaccinations were up to date. Hesitant families were more likely to be parents of children aged 6-10 years, be of Asian descent, report that mRNA vaccines are riskier than traditional vaccines, and report that the vaccine should not be given if the child has a history of allergic reaction to vaccines. Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy exists mainly among certain ethnic groups and families with young children. Allergies to food, venom and drug allergy are commonly perceived as contraindications for COVID-19 vaccination. Knowledge translation activities addressing parental concerns will help increase vaccination rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".