Assessing the Impact of Risk Factors on Vaccination Uptake Policy Decisions Using a Bayesian Network (BN) Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the propagation impact of three risk categories (hazard and exposure, socio-economic vulnerability, and lack of coping capacity) and their associated factors on vaccination uptake policy decisions in Pakistan. This study proposed Bayesian influence diagrams using expert elicitation and data-driven approaches. The Bayesian network (BN) approach uses the best policy algorithm to determine the expected utility of decisions. The study found that the government’s firm vaccine uptake decisions had a positive effect in Pakistan. The findings on hazard and exposure-related factors show that people living in rural areas were more susceptible to COVID-19 than people living in urban areas. Among socio-economic vulnerability factors, household characteristics were affected due to household economic situations, fear of using health facilities due to the spread of COVID-19, lack of public transportation services, food insecurity, a temporary halt in education, and weak governance, which affected the vaccination uptake decision. The factors linked with coping capacity show that the government’s financial assistance and development of digital platforms raised digital health literacy and increased vaccine uptake decision utility. The proposed methodology and results of this study can be used to develop contingency planning for any future potential pandemic situations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".