Parental intention to have daughters receive the human papillomavirus vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that parents may be reluctant to have their daughters receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, because of a belief that doing so might be interpreted as condoning earlier and more frequent sexual activity. We determined intentions regarding vaccination among Canadian parents and factors that predicted parental intention to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV. METHODS: Parents of children 8-18 years of age, recruited from across Canada, were asked to respond to questions in the context of a grade 6, publicly funded, school-based HPV vaccine program. We performed backward logistic regression analysis to identify factors predictive of parents' intention to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV. RESULTS: Of the 1350 respondents with female children, more than 70% (73.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.5%-76.1%) intended to have their daughters undergo vaccination against HPV. In multivariable modelling, parents who had positive attitudes toward vaccines (odds ratio [OR] 9.9, 95% CI 4.7-21.1), those who were influenced by subjective norms (OR 9.2, 95% CI 6.6-12.9), those who felt that the vaccine had limited influence on sexual behaviour (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2-4.6) and those who thought someone they knew was likely to get cervical cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) were more likely to intend that their daughters receive the HPV vaccine. Parents who were older (v. younger) (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and those who resided in British Columbia or Yukon Territory (v. Atlantic Canada) (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9) were less likely to intend that their daughters receive the HPV vaccine. INTERPRETATION: Most of the parents surveyed intended that their daughters would receive vaccination against HPV. Overall attitudes toward vaccines in general and toward the HPV vaccine in particular constituted the most significant predictor of parental intention with regard to vaccination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".