MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391839404 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293643

“It’s not that I don’t trust vaccines, I just don’t think I need them”: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination

2024· article· en· W4391839404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Pelletier, Dominique Gagnon, Ève Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineFocus groupFamily medicineReceiptBooster (rocketry)Booster dosePandemicGovernment (linguistics)ImmunizationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Quebec (Canada), the roll-out of the vaccination started slowly in December 2020 due to limited vaccine supply. While the first and second doses were well-accepted among adults and vaccine uptake was above 90%, in late 2021 and 2022, vaccine acceptance decreased for children vaccination and receipt of a 3rd or a 4th dose. In the autumn of 2022, four focus groups were conducted with vaccine-hesitant parents of children aged 0-4 and adults who expressed little intention to receive a booster dose. The objective of this study was to gather participants' perspectives on vaccination in general, on the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and the information available, and to gain insights into the underlying reasons for their low intention of either having their child(ren) vaccinated, or receiving an additional dose of vaccine. A total of 35 participants took part in the focus groups. While participants expressed a certain level of trust and confidence in public health and government authorities regarding pandemic management and the vaccination campaign, they were also concerned that transparent information was lacking to support an informed decision on booster doses and children's vaccination. Many participants felt adequately protected against the infection during the focus groups, citing a lack of perceived benefits as the primary reason for refusing a booster dose. Parents who refused to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to their young children felt that the vaccine was not useful for children and were concerned about potential side effects. The majority reported that their opinions regarding other recommended vaccines had not changed since the beginning of the pandemic. While these results are reassuring, our findings highlight the importance of transparency in public health communications about vaccines to increase confidence and to develop strategies to address vaccine fatigue and complacency toward COVID-19 vaccines.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207