COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccination Barriers for Refugees in Calgary, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Refugees and migrants globally face inequities to healthcare and COVID-19 vaccination access, calling for tailored approaches to ensure equitable vaccine allocation. This research explored refugee experiences with COVID-19 vaccination models. Objective: The purpose was to understand the barriers and strengths of each model to support access to COVID-19 vaccination for refugees. Study Design and Analysis: The project used a mixed method approach that included secondary vaccination data and primary qualitative data. A mixed method data analysis approach was adopted to explore the research questions, and thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data. Setting or Dataset: This study examined the experiences of refugees who moved through COVID-19 vaccination systems in the Calgary, Canada area. Population Studied: Research participants were identified through purposive sampling and include settlement and healthcare organization staff involved in vaccination pathways for refugees, sponsors of refugees, and refugees that were processed in Calgary. Intervention/Instrument: A database of refugee COVID-19 vaccinations was used to inform findings. Structured and semi-structured interview data was collected with settlement and healthcare organizations stakeholders (N=13), refugee sponsors (N=3) and refugees (N=45). Results: Multiple factors affected vaccine uptake: individual (COVID-19 knowledge, personal philosophies), community (socio-cultural factors, media) and structural factors (public health approaches, vaccine supply and demand, the specific wave of COVID-19). These factors, along with barriers to vaccination, had a non-linear impact on vaccine uptake. The research demonstrated that vaccine confidence, hesitancy, uptake and vaccination intent are not mutually exclusive. Strategies to address barriers included timely and credible information in first languages, on-site translation by trained personnel, transportation, on-site vaccinations and extended hours of services. These strategies simultaneously addressed vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions: This project explored the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and identified individual, community and structural factors that affected hesitancy, as well as barriers to vaccination. It demonstrated that decisions to vaccinate are not straightforward paths. Systems must address issues at multiple levels, which include partnerships and barrier mitigation strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".