MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406372488 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00405

Parental experiences of caring for their preschool children after declining vaccines: a qualitative systematic review

2025· review· en· W4406372488 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Huel, Karen MacKinnon, Jillian Harding, Roya Haghiri‐Vijeh, Carol Gordon, Shannon E. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review synthesizes qualitative research about the experiences of parental caregivers enhancing their children's health after making the decision to not vaccinate their preschool children. This review aims to help health care providers understand the parental work involved in caring for under-vaccinated or unvaccinated children. INTRODUCTION: Much of the current qualitative research literature about parents who are vaccine-hesitant or who decide not to vaccinate their children focuses on parental perceptions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and decision-making. However, limited attention has been paid to measures taken by parents to help their young children avoid contracting vaccine-preventable communicable diseases, promote resistance, and enhance their children's health. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered qualitative studies that described parents' experiences of caring for their young children, aged 0 to 6 years, after making the decision not to vaccinate. Studies undertaken in any context were considered. Studies that focused on young children who were unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated for reasons not related to parental refusal were excluded. METHODS: The JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence was followed. Databases were searched from 1998 onward, and included Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, with no language limits. Following critical appraisal, findings that described parental experiences and the care activities they performed relating to their young children were extracted. The JBI process of meta-aggregation was used to identify categories and synthesize findings. The ConQual approach was used to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Forty studies met the criteria for inclusion. The studies were conducted in 14 countries across 4 continents, with approximately 676 participants. From these studies, 115 findings were extracted and combined to form 12 categories based on similarity in meaning and 3 synthesized findings: i) Parental care strategies in the home-focused on the individual and family, ii) Parental care strategies in the community-managing social interactions and community networks, and iii) Parental care strategies at the systems-level-challenging societal discourses and institutional work processes. CONCLUSIONS: The major conclusions from this review highlight the laborious activities that parents undertake to care for their children's health after declining vaccines. Care activities extended from the household to the community, encompassing myriad anticipatory and reactive measures. Parents demonstrated a strong commitment to their children's health and well-being while responding to stigma they experienced among their friends, children's teachers, and health care providers. While facing or expecting penalties related to their vaccine choices, parents reached out to like-minded peers for support and planned next steps should punitive measures become overwhelming. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021241781. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A Farsi-language version of the abstract of this review is available at: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A78 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207