Parent and healthcare provider views of live varicella vaccination of pediatric solid organ transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Live attenuated varicella vaccine (LAVV) has historically been contraindicated in children who are immunocompromised due to solid organ transplant (SOT) because of safety concerns. Recently, clinical guidelines were developed that support post-transplant varicella vaccination in selected SOT recipients based on emerging evidence of LAVV safety. This qualitative study sought to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing the new guidelines, as well as acceptability of LAVV among healthcare providers (HCPs) and parents. METHODS: HCPs and parents of transplant recipients were recruited from four sites using purposive sampling. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an Interpretive Description approach that incorporated data from the interviews, academic knowledge and clinical experience, and drew from Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis. The theoretical framework used was Adaptive Leadership. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants (16 HCPs and 18 parents) were included in the analysis. Parents developed skills in adaptive leadership that included strategies to protect their child against infectious diseases. Foundational information that live vaccines were absolutely contraindicated post-transplant "stuck" with parents and led them to develop strategies other than vaccination to keep their child safe. Some parents struggled to understand that information previously presented as a certainty (contraindication of LAVV) could change. Their approach to adaptive leadership informed their appraisal of the new vaccination guidelines and willingness to accept vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs should adopt a family-centered approach to communicating changing guidelines that considers parents' approach to adaptive leadership and discusses the changing nature of medical evidence. Trust between HCPs and parents can facilitate these conversations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".