MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409970326 · doi:10.1186/s40249-025-01295-8

Reliability and validity study of the “5Cs” hesitancy scale for maternal influenza vaccination among pregnant and postpartum women

2025· article· en· W4409970326 on OpenAlexaff
Fanyu Zeng, Boyu Du, Hong Jiang, Min Zheng, Xiu Qiu, Fen Li, Nianhua Yi, Yinglan Wu, Yuanying Ma, Changhui Li, Chunyi Gu, Lei Wang, Fengyun Yang, Longmei Jin, Yanran Yang, Xu Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Diseases of Poverty · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersShanghai Key Discipline Construction ProjectBill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health
KeywordsMedicineReliability (semiconductor)VaccinationScale (ratio)Public healthFamily medicineValidityReproductive medicineObstetricsPregnancyGynecologyImmunologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsNursingBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal influenza vaccine hesitancy plays a vital role in the low rates of vaccination. However, instruments to appropriately assess perinatal influenza vaccine hesitancy are unavailable. This study aimed to develop the Maternal Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy Scale based on the 5C vaccination hesitancy scale, containing the subscales of confidence, complacency, constraints, calculative, and collective responsibility, and to provide a preliminary overview of the current hesitancy on maternal influenza vaccination in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey, from January to March 2024, was carried out among 2035 pregnant and postpartum women from nine provincial-level administrative divisions representing eastern, central, western, and northeastern areas of China. Reliability was evaluated by internal consistency reliability and split-half reliability, and a Cronbach's alpha coefficient > 0.7 was considered acceptable. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with good model fit defined as root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.100, normed fit index (NFI) > 0.9, comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.9, and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) > 0.9. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis results supported the five-factor structure of the scale (RMESA = 0.098, CFI = 0.921, TLI = 0.903, NFI = 0.918). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the scale as well as the subscales ranged from 0.802 to 0.958. Among five subscales, collective responsibility (2.73 ± 0.63) scored highest, while complacency (2.16 ± 0.69) and constraints (2.17 ± 0.69) were the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: The Maternal Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy Scale developed in this study is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the influenza vaccine hesitancy of pregnant and postpartum women. It is recommended that interventions including health education and improving the access to the vaccination service be carried out to reduce the maternal influenza vaccination hesitancy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfectious Diseases of PovertySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207