Human papillomavirus vaccine uptake among 9–17 year old males in the United States: The National Health Interview Survey, 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, a quadrivalent HPV vaccine was approved and "permissively" recommended for US males aged 9 to 26 y to protect against genital warts. The purpose of this study was to examine parental awareness and HPV vaccine uptake among 9-17 y old males during the first year following this recommendation. Data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were obtained to assess vaccination status (n = 2973) of this age group. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine correlates of parental awareness and uptake of the HPV vaccine. Overall, 55% of parents with sons were aware of the HPV vaccine. The likelihood of parental awareness was lower among minorities and adolescents with low family incomes, and higher among adolescents with insurance, higher parental education, and those who had a well-child check up and dental examination in the past year than their counterparts. Only 2.0% and 0.5% of 9-17 y old males initiated (≥ 1 dose) and completed (≥ 3 doses) the vaccine series, respectively. Adolescents with a Hispanic origin (odds ratio (OR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-3.78), low family income (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.48 -5.57), and history of influenza vaccination in the past year (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.11 -3.22) were more likely than their counterparts to initiate the HPV vaccine. On the other hand, adolescents with private insurance (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 -0.94) and those who had college educated parents (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 -0.89) were less likely to initiate the vaccine. This study showed that very few adolescent males received any doses of HPV vaccine during the first year following its recommendation for this gender. Thus, interventional programs are needed to improve vaccine uptake among adolescent males.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".