‘I didn't even know boys could get the vaccine’: Parents' reasons for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination decision making for their sons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was to examine parents' reasons for their decision to vaccinate their 9-16-year-old sons with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. METHODS: Using the precaution adoption process model (PAPM), parents were classified according to one of six stages of decision making: unaware, unengaged, undecided, decided not to vaccinate, decided to vaccinate, or vaccinated. Parents responded to an open-ended question: 'What would influence your decision to have your son vaccinated or not against HPV?' RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred and seventeen parents provided 2,874 interpretable narrative responses that were coded using thematic content analyses. The majority of parents were in the earlier precaution adoption process model stages, that is, unaware that the HPV vaccine could be given to boys (57.0%), unengaged (20.9%), or undecided (9.1%). Needing more information, vaccine cost, risks associated with vaccination, and wanting a doctor's recommendation influenced these earlier-staged parents' decisions. Parents who decided not to vaccinate their sons (6.8%) reported their decision was due to the risks, insufficient research, lack of confidence in vaccines, and/or no need for the vaccine (as their sons are not sexually active and/or too young). Parents who had decided to vaccinate their sons (5.0%) or who had vaccinated their sons (1.1%) reported that their decisions were based on protecting their sons' health and preventing disease. CONCLUSION: There are important differences in the factors that influence parents' decision depending on where they are along the decision-making trajectory. Assuring that parents are well informed about the importance of male vaccination, reducing vaccine cost, accurately communicating vaccine safety, and improving patient-provider communication may augment vaccine coverage and prevent HPV-associated cancers in Canada. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".