HPV/cervical cancer vaccination: parental preferences on age, place and information needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A vaccine against cervical cancer is available in New Zealand through school and primary care for girls aged 12-18 years. Factors that might increase or hinder widespread uptake by the target population need to be identified. AIM: To describe parents' preferences on where their daughter(s) receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, at what age, and their information needs. METHODS: 3123 questionnaires were distributed to parents recruited from 14 schools in 2008, prior to the start of the school-based vaccination programme. Outcome measures were: preferred age and place of vaccination, and information needs of parents and their daughters. Tests for significance were performed to determine whether parental preferences differed by ethnic group (Maori, Pacific, New Zealand European and 'Other'). RESULTS: A 25% response rate was achieved (769/3123). Receipt of the HPV vaccine in a clinic setting was preferred by 40% of parents; 25% preferred vaccination at school. Fifty percent preferred vaccination to occur at age 13 or older; 28% thought ages 10, 11 or 12 appropriate. One in three parents wanted more information and 65% said they would seek information from their family doctor before deciding on the vaccine for their daughter(s). DISCUSSION: We suggest that a programme delivered jointly in primary care and school settings, that is appropriately resourced for follow-up and information-sharing, would increase vaccine coverage. The rationale for vaccination at age 12 needs to be made clear to parents and evidence-based information needs to be delivered appropriately to parents and girls.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".