• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Partisan Polarization of Childhood Vaccination Policies, 1995‒2020.1995 年至 2020 年期间儿童疫苗接种政策的党派极化现象。
Am J Public Health. 2022 Oct;112(10):1471-1479. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.306964. Epub 2022 Aug 25.
2
Early policy responses to the human papillomavirus vaccine in the United States, 2006-2010.2006-2010 年美国针对人乳头瘤病毒疫苗的早期政策反应。
J Adolesc Health. 2014 Nov;55(5):659-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.04.015. Epub 2014 Jun 10.
3
Trends and Characteristics of Proposed and Enacted State Legislation on Childhood Vaccination Exemption, 2011-2017.2011-2017 年,提议和颁布的儿童疫苗豁免州立法的趋势和特征。
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jan;109(1):102-107. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304765. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
4
What predicts legislative success of early care and education policies?: Applications of machine learning and Natural Language Processing in a cross-state early childhood policy analysis.什么因素预示着早期儿童保育和教育政策的立法成功?:机器学习和自然语言处理在跨州幼儿政策分析中的应用。
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246730. eCollection 2021.
5
Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures.推进两党脱碳政策:来自州层面成功与失败的经验教训。
Clim Change. 2022;171(1-2):17. doi: 10.1007/s10584-022-03335-w. Epub 2022 Mar 31.
6
Preventing childhood obesity through state policy. Predictors of bill enactment.通过国家政策预防儿童肥胖。法案颁布的预测因素。
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Apr;34(4):333-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.003.
7
US State-Level Preemption Legislation, 2017-2018: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.美国州级立法否决权:2017-2018 年:对公共卫生政策和实践的影响。
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021;27(2):105-108. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001047.
8
Family planning policy in the United States: the converging politics of abortion and contraception.美国的计划生育政策:堕胎与避孕的趋同政治
Contraception. 2016 May;93(5):412-20. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.007. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
9
Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, 2019.2019 年美国关于疫苗的政策观点和负面信念。
Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(10):1561-1563. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305828. Epub 2020 Aug 20.
10
The 2016 California policy to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions and changes in vaccine coverage: An empirical policy analysis.2016 年加州消除非医学疫苗豁免政策及疫苗接种覆盖率变化:一项实证政策分析。
PLoS Med. 2019 Dec 23;16(12):e1002994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002994. eCollection 2019 Dec.

引用本文的文献

1
Court-mandated redistricting and disparities in infant mortality and deaths of despair.法院强制规定的重新划分选区以及婴儿死亡率和绝望死亡方面的差异。
BMC Public Health. 2025 Mar 19;25(1):1058. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22221-5.
2
Polarization, Partisanship, and Political Alignment Threaten Public Health: A Public Health of Consequence, October 2024.两极分化、党派之争与政治立场威胁公众健康:《具有重大影响的公共卫生》,2024年10月
Am J Public Health. 2024 Oct;114(10):974-976. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2024.307826.
3
Public conservation connection and support between ocean and terrestrial systems in the United States.美国海洋和陆地系统之间的公共保护联系和支持。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 25;19(7):e0307431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307431. eCollection 2024.
4
Factors associated with parental human papillomavirus vaccination intentions among adolescents from socioeconomically advantaged versus deprived households: a nationwide, cross-sectional survey.社会经济条件优越与贫困家庭青少年中父母人乳头瘤病毒疫苗接种意愿的相关因素:一项全国性横断面调查
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2024 Feb 19;31:100694. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100694. eCollection 2024 Mar.
5
Political network composition predicts vaccination attitudes.政治网络构成预测疫苗接种态度。
Soc Sci Med. 2023 Jul;328:116004. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116004. Epub 2023 Jun 2.
6
Towards Eliminating Nonmedical Vaccination Exemptions Among School-Age Children.朝着消除学龄儿童非医学疫苗豁免的目标迈进。
Dela J Public Health. 2022 Mar 29;8(1):84-88. doi: 10.32481/djph.2022.03.014. eCollection 2022 Mar.

本文引用的文献

1
Exploring the relationship between political partisanship and COVID-19 vaccination rate.探讨政治党派立场与 COVID-19 疫苗接种率之间的关系。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2023 Mar 14;45(1):91-98. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab364.
2
Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0249596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249596. eCollection 2021.
3
Facebook Pages, the "Disneyland" Measles Outbreak, and Promotion of Vaccine Refusal as a Civil Right, 2009-2019.2009-2019 年,脸书专页、“迪士尼乐园”麻疹疫情爆发,以及将疫苗抵制宣传为公民权利
Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(S3):S312-S318. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305869.
4
Pandemic Politics: Timing State-Level Social Distancing Responses to COVID-19.大流行政治:新冠疫情时期的州级社会隔离应对措施的时机选择。
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2021 Apr 1;46(2):211-233. doi: 10.1215/03616878-8802162.
5
Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.两极分化与公共卫生:新冠疫情期间社会 distancing 方面的党派差异。 (注:这里“social distancing”常见释义为“社交距离” ,但原文中该词似乎有误,可能是“social distancing measures”之类表述会更准确,直接翻译的话就是“社会距离” )
J Public Econ. 2020 Nov;191:104254. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
6
The History of the Personal Belief Exemption.个人信仰豁免的历史。
Pediatrics. 2020 Apr;145(4). doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2551. Epub 2020 Mar 17.
7
Trends and Characteristics of Proposed and Enacted State Legislation on Childhood Vaccination Exemption, 2011-2017.2011-2017 年,提议和颁布的儿童疫苗豁免州立法的趋势和特征。
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jan;109(1):102-107. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304765. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
8
Neighborhood political composition and personal belief exemptions from immunization requirements in California Kindergartens, 2000-2015.2000-2015 年加利福尼亚幼儿园的邻里政治构成和个人信仰免疫豁免情况。
Vaccine. 2018 Jul 5;36(29):4298-4303. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.108. Epub 2018 Jun 2.
9
Trends in Kindergarten Rates of Vaccine Exemption and State-Level Policy, 2011-2016.2011 - 2016年幼儿园疫苗豁免率及州级政策趋势
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 15;5(2):ofx244. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx244. eCollection 2018 Feb.
10
Who votes for public health? U.S. senator characteristics associated with voting in concordance with public health policy recommendations (1998-2013).谁为公共卫生投票?与按照公共卫生政策建议进行投票相关的美国参议员特征(1998 - 2013年)
SSM Popul Health. 2016 Dec 23;3:136-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.12.011. eCollection 2017 Dec.

1995 年至 2020 年期间儿童疫苗接种政策的党派极化现象。

Partisan Polarization of Childhood Vaccination Policies, 1995‒2020.

机构信息

Kevin Estep is with the Department of Cultural and Social Studies, Health Administration and Policy Program, and the Department of Medical Humanities, Creighton University, Omaha, NE. Annika Muse is with the Department of Biology, Creighton University. Shannon Sweeney is with the Department of Cultural and Social Studies, Health Administration and Policy Program, Creighton University. Neal D. Goldstein is with the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA.

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 2022 Oct;112(10):1471-1479. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.306964. Epub 2022 Aug 25.

DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2022.306964
PMID:36007205
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9480467/
Abstract

To examine trends in partisan polarization of childhood vaccine bills and the impact of polarization on bill passage in the United States. We performed content analysis on 1497 US state bills (1995-2020) and obtained voting returns for 228 legislative votes (2011‒2020). We performed descriptive and statistical analyses using 2 measures of polarization. Vote polarization rose more rapidly for immunization than abortion or veterans' affairs bills. Bills in 2019-2020 were more than 7 times more likely to be polarized than in 1995-1996 (odds ratio [OR] = 7.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.54, 13.99). Bills related to public health emergencies were more polarized (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.13, 2.75). Sponsor polarization was associated with 34% lower odds of passage (OR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.03). State lawmakers were more divided on vaccine policy, but partisan bills were less likely to pass. Bill characteristics associated with lower polarization could signal opportunities for future bipartisanship. Increasing partisan polarization could alter state-level vaccine policies in ways that jeopardize childhood immunization rates or weaken responsiveness during public health emergencies. Authorities should look for areas of bipartisan agreement on how to maintain vaccination rates. (. 2022;112(10):1471-1479. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306964).

摘要

研究目的

考察美国儿童疫苗法案中党派极化的趋势,以及极化对法案通过的影响。

研究方法

我们对 1497 项美国州级法案(1995-2020 年)进行了内容分析,并获得了 228 项立法投票的投票结果(2011-2020 年)。我们使用两种极化衡量标准进行描述性和统计分析。

研究结果

与堕胎或退伍军人事务法案相比,免疫法案的投票极化上升得更快。2019-2020 年的法案比 1995-1996 年的法案更有可能出现极化(优势比 [OR] = 7.04;95%置信区间 [CI] = 3.54, 13.99)。与公共卫生紧急情况相关的法案更为极化(OR = 1.76;95%CI = 1.13, 2.75)。提案人的极化程度与通过的可能性降低 34%相关(OR = 0.66;95%CI = 0.42, 1.03)。

结论

州议员在疫苗政策上的分歧更大,但党派法案更不可能通过。与低极化相关的法案特征可能预示着未来两党合作的机会。党派极化的加剧可能会以危及儿童免疫接种率或削弱公共卫生紧急情况下的响应能力的方式改变州一级的疫苗政策。当局应该寻找在如何维持疫苗接种率方面达成两党共识的领域。