MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400453221 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.310

311 Decisional needs of Canadians considering vaccination during the covid-19 pandemic: a population-based cross-sectional survey

2024· article· en· W4400453221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Qian Zhang, Krystina B. Lewis, J. Craig Phillips, Meg Carley, Claire Ludwig, Patrick Archambault, Maureen Smith, Monica Taljaard, Karine V. Plourde, France Légaré, Dawn Stacey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCochraneUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional studyVaccinationPopulation2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineVirologyEnvironmental healthOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Since the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved in December 2020, Canadians faced the decision of whether or not to get the COVID-19 vaccination. We sought to identify Canadians’ decisional needs about COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We conducted two online surveys of adult Canadians (aged≥18) to explore decisions and decisional needs during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic (1454 participants in May 2021; 1718 in May 2022). This is a sub-analysis of participants who identified the COVID-19 vaccination as a difficult decision. In the sub-analysis, we assessed the decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework including Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret Scales. We analyzed data descriptively. We reported the methods according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) statement. Results In the first and second year, 490 (33.7%) and 465 (27.6%) participants respectively selected the decision about COVID-19 vaccination. The rate of clinically significant decision conflict (CSDC, score >37.5 out of 100) was 22.7% and 26.3%. Common factors influencing the decision were: worried about choosing the ‘wrong’ option (45.5%; 32.0%), difficulty separating fake news/fake science results from scientific evidence (39.4%; 30.9%) and worry about getting COVID-19 (30.4%; 30.9%). Of 440 and 463 participants who had made a decision, 23.9% and 38.4% had moderate to severe decision regret (score >25 out of 100). Discussion Many Canadians who faced the decision about COVID-19 vaccination experience clinically significant decisional conflict. Decision regret increased in the second year. This decision was influenced by uncertainty, misinformation, and fear of getting COVID-19. Conclusion Decision support interventions are needed to address the decisional needs of Canadians considering new COVID-19 vaccination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→