“I Thought It Was Better to Be Safe Than Sorry”: Factors Influencing Parental Decisions on HPV and Other Adolescent Vaccinations for Students with Intellectual Disability and/or Autism in New South Wales, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uptake of human papilloma virus (HPV) and other adolescent vaccinations in special schools for young people with disability is significantly lower than in mainstream settings. This study explored the factors believed to influence parental decision making regarding vaccine uptake for students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum attending special schools in New South Wales, Australia, from the perspective of all stakeholders involved in the program. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 40 participants, including parents, school staff, and immunisation providers. The thematic analysis identified two themes: (1) appreciating diverse parental attitudes towards vaccination and (2) educating parents and managing vaccination questions and concerns. While most parents were described as pro-vaccination, others were anti-vaccination or vaccination-hesitant, articulating a marked protectiveness regarding their child's health. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy included beliefs that vaccines cause autism, concerns that the vaccination may be traumatic for the child, vaccination fatigue following COVID-19, and assumptions that children with disability will not be sexually active. Special school staff regarded the vaccination information pack as inadequate for families, and nurses described limited educational impact resulting from minimal direct communication with parents. More effective communication strategies are needed to address vaccine hesitancy among parents with children with disability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".