Influenza Immunization Practices and Policies for Health Care Students in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine is recommended for all health care providers including health care students. Little is known about how health care student programs provide information about influenza vaccination to their students, deliver vaccines and document their vaccination status. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used and included key informant interviews of program coordinators for health care student programs in Halifax (Nova Scotia) and a national survey of program coordinators of health care student programs across Canada. RESULTS: All 21 coordinators of programs that had students placed at the IWK Health Centre (Halifax, Nova Scotia) during the influenza season were interviewed. Surveys were completed by 93 (36.3%) of 256 eligible coordinators representing 134 different programs (response rate 52.3%). Most programs encouraged seasonal influenza vaccination but only 28 (20.9%) required it. None of the Halifax programs delivered influenza vaccine and most preferred a coordinated, centrally administered program. In contrast, many programs across Canada delivered influenza vaccine and did not desire a centralized process. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variability in the delivery of influenza vaccine to health care students across Canada. Coordinated programs may be desirable where delivery programs do not already exist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".