Practice, Policy and Evidence Facilitating Promotion of Vaccination in Pregnancy in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vaccination in pregnancy (VIP) is a dually protective measure for both pregnant parents and babies. Yet, insufficient time to educate, a lack of strong recommendations and concerns around safety can deter expecting parents from vaccination. This scoping review will summarize the extent of resources available to perinatal providers when discussing vaccination with their pregnant patients, in the grey literature and published literature. Aim: To understand the Canadian context in facilitating vaccination in pregnancy discussions. Purpose: To identify the resources that support HCPs and patients during VIP discussions in Canada currently. Published Literature Research Question (1): What has been tried or what is known about strategies to support vaccination discussions in pregnancy in Canada? (2): What evidence-informed vaccination information is available to support HCP's discussion of vaccination in pregnancy? Grey Literature Research Question: What resources (i.e., tools, guidelines, practice documents, policies, recommendations, and patient-facing documents) are available in the grey literature for practitioners to consult or use to discuss vaccination during pregnancy in Canada? Methods: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review. Search Strategy: We will aim to locate both published and unpublished studies, guidelines, and practice documents. Thus, two approaches will be taken to search for resources published in literature databases and registries and the internet.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".