MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384119958 · doi:10.17269/s41997-023-00797-y

Gaps in childhood immunizations and preventive care visits during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study of children in Ontario and Manitoba, Canada, 2016–2021

2023· article· en· W4384119958 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrea Evans, Alyson Mahar, Bhumika Deb, Alexa Boblitz, Marni Brownell, Astrid Guttmann, Thérèse A. Stukel, Eyal Cohen, Joykrishna Sarkar, N Eze, Alan Katz, Tharani Raveendran, Natasha Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesManitoba HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationPandemicRelative riskConfidence intervalReceiptPopulationPediatricsDemographyCohort studyEnvironmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Immunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the changes to the delivery of routine immunizations and well-child visits through the pandemic. METHODS: Using linked administrative health data in Ontario and Manitoba, Canada (1 September 2016 to 30 September 2021), infants <12 months old (N=291,917 Ontario, N=33,994 Manitoba) and children between 12 and 24 months old (N=293,523 Ontario, N=33,001 Manitoba) exposed and unexposed to the COVID-19 pandemic were compared on rates of receipt of recommended a) vaccinations and b) well-child visits after adjusting for sociodemographic measures. In Ontario, vaccinations were captured using physician billings database, and in Manitoba they were captured in a centralized vaccination registry. RESULTS: Exposed Ontario infants were slightly more likely to receive all vaccinations according to billing data (62.5% exposed vs. 61.6% unexposed; adjusted Relative Rate (aRR) 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.02]) whereas exposed Manitoba infants were less likely to receive all vaccines (73.5% exposed vs. 79.2% unexposed; aRR 0.93 [95% CI 0.92-0.94]). Among children exposed to the pandemic, total vaccination receipt was modestly decreased compared to unexposed (Ontario aRR 0.98 [95% CI 0.97-0.99]; Manitoba aRR 0.93 [95% CI 0.91-0.94]). Pandemic-exposed infants were less likely to complete all recommended well-child visits in Ontario (33.0% exposed, 48.8% unexposed; aRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.68-0.69]) and Manitoba (55.0% exposed, 70.7% unexposed; aRR 0.78 [95% CI 0.77-0.79]). A similar relationship was observed for rates of completed well-child visits among children in Ontario (aRR 0.78 [95% CI 0.77-0.79]) and Manitoba (aRR 0.79 [95% CI 0.77-0.80]). CONCLUSION: Through the first 18 months of the pandemic, routine vaccines were delivered to children < 2 years old at close to pre-pandemic rates. There was a high proportion of incomplete well-child visits, indicating that developmental surveillance catch-up is crucial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207