A Missed Opportunity: Evaluating Immunization Status and Barriers in Hospitalized Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hospitalized children are a potentially underimmunized population. We sought to determine the proportion of patients admitted to our pediatric medicine inpatient units who are underimmunized or unimmunized and to identify barriers to immunization faced by families of children admitted to hospital. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of children aged 2 months to 18 years admitted to our pediatric medicine inpatient units between July 2021 and October 2022. Immunization and demographic data were collected from electronic medical charts. Immunization status of each child was categorized as up-to-date if they had received all eligible vaccine doses in accordance with the provincial immunization schedule. Caregivers completed a survey on barriers to immunizations; results were compared between caregivers of children whose vaccines were up-to-date and those who were not. RESULTS: Hospitalized children were missing more doses of the preschool vaccines than the general population based on published provincial data. Only 142 of 244 (58.2%) of study patients were up-to-date on all their immunizations. Caregivers of children whose immunizations were not up-to-date reported significantly more barriers to vaccination in all survey categories: access to shots, concerns about shots, and importance of shots. CONCLUSIONS: There is a disparity in immunization status between children admitted to hospital in a Canadian setting compared with national targets and community immunization rates. Caregivers of underimmunized hospitalized children cited significantly more barriers to immunization when compared with hospitalized children who are up-to-date. Pursuing a hospital-based immunization strategy could lead to improved immunization status for hospitalized children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".