Factors associated with shingles and pneumococcal vaccination among older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Immunization against vaccine-preventable diseases such as shingles and pneumococcal disease is especially pertinent among older Canadians. However, vaccine uptake remains low. Data and methods: Data from the Canadian Health Survey on Seniors (CHSS) - 2019/2020 were used to examine receipt of shingles and pneumococcal vaccines among Canadians aged 65 and older living in the community. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify individual predisposing, enabling and needs-related factors associated with receipt of each type of vaccination. Reasons reported for not getting vaccinated were also examined. Results: Based on the 2019/2020 CHSS, an estimated 36.3% of Canadians aged 65 and older (2.3 million people) had received the shingles vaccine, while 51.1% (3.1 million) had received the pneumococcal vaccine. Being a woman, having higher socioeconomic status, having had the flu shot and having a regular health care provider were associated with increased odds of vaccination. Being an immigrant, living outside large population centres, and belonging to South Asian or Chinese population groups were associated with lower odds of vaccination. Over one-third of unvaccinated people did not think the shingles vaccine (39.7%) or the pneumococcal vaccine (36.6%) was necessary. Other frequently reported reasons for non-vaccination were not having heard of the vaccine or the doctor not mentioning it; for the shingles vaccine, 12% cited cost as a reason. Interpretation: Understanding factors associated with uptake of vaccines and reasons for not obtaining them among older Canadians will help to inform policy and programs aimed at preventing the burden of these diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".