Bibliographic record
Abstract
西アフリカニジェール共和国における小児ワクチン接種促進戦略としてのおんぶ布の効果を測定するためにランダム化比較試験（RCT）を実施した。結果的に、介入群と対照群の違いはなかった。実際は介入群の母親はワクチン接種を促進するために配布されたワクチン接種情報がデザインされたおんぶ布は好まれそして使われていたが、ロジスティック回帰では、介入群の母親は、子どもにはしか予防接種を受けさせる可能性が低いことがわかった（OR 0.76、p = 0.007）。 In December 2020, a total of 1,682 mothers were recruited and interviewed with the baseline questionnaire on their motivation and ability to participate in childhood vaccination. In April 2021, 167 of the survey participants were surveyed again. This fund for individual research financed the end-line survey (N=445, with data complete for N=379). Funds were wired to the National Institute of Statistics (in Niger) to collect and upload data from the survey conducted between September and October 2021, at the mother-child's 5th visit for vaccination. Mothers participating in the study, both intervention and control groups, were asked a series of questions to assess their knowledge of the vaccination calendar, their motivation for vaccination, their ability to access vaccination, and the prompts for going to a vaccination appointment. Information were collected with tablets and uploaded for the researcher in Japan to access and analyze. The 1,682 women recruited into the study were between 15 to 45 years old, 30% had never been educated and 10% had only attended a Koran school. About 20% were first-time mothers who had come for their baby's BCG vaccination. Nearly a quarter of the mothers had neither electricity nor a water faucet in their homes. The third end-line survey found that mothers who received the designed baby-wrap liked it (95% of 160 mothers), used it mostly to take their child to the health center (89%) but did not understand the meaning of the symbols (41%) and the baby-wrap did not help them count the time between vaccination appointments (45%). Although 96% of mothers responded that they thought the printed fabric was a good way to transmit health information, that the vaccination calendar baby-wrap was a good idea (96%), that the baby-wrap reminded them of vaccination (71%), vaccination rates and completion of vaccination series did not improve. The study calculated a motivation and ability (to access and utilize healthcare services) score for each mother and followed this score from baseline to end-line. Motivation (to vaccinate) went down but ability (to vaccinate) improved slightly over 10 months and a factor which may influence the outcome of measles vaccination. Logistic regression found that intervention clinic mothers were less likely (OR 0.76, p=0.007) to get their child measles vaccinated despite having received the vaccination calendar wrap. The reasons for this lack of understanding and lack of translation into action (vaccination of their child) are currently being analyzed with information from qualitative interviews conducted by a co-researcher in November 2021.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".