Challenges to Accepting a Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine: A Qualitative Study of Australian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vaccine that protects women against the two most frequent high-risk genotypes of human papilloma virus (HPV) and the two types that cause 90 percent of genital warts was licensed in June 2006 in the USA and Australia. It is important to understand whether a vaccine delivered to young women before the onset of sexual activity would be acceptable. The goal of this project was to investigate the knowledge and awareness of Victorian women about cervical cancer and HPV infections, and their beliefs about, and possible barriers to, a potential vaccine. We report on findings from five focus groups, held between August and October 2005, which targeted 34 women, aged 22 to 71, from diverse backgrounds. High levels of acceptance of vaccines in general were expressed, particularly if the vaccine is recommended by health professionals and supported by the government. Reservations emerged about the proposed HPV vaccine when the link between HPV and sexual activity was understood. We offer suggestions concerning the nature of information required prior to the introduction of a vaccination program and the mechanisms by which the information can be delivered to ensure its availability to all women.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".