Challenging ‘girls only’ publicly funded human papillomavirus vaccination programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This analysis examines the 'girls only' policy for publicly funded human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes. Current funding policy in most Canadian provinces covers 'girls only' with the goal of reducing mortality and morbidity rates of HPV-related cervical cancer. Recent studies indicate increasing rates of other HPV-related cancers among cisgender men and women. The HPV vaccine is proving effective against some of these cancers. Statistics on HPV vaccine uptake among individuals with different gender expressions are scarce. Critics argue that a 'girls only' HPV vaccine policy is inequitable. We add to this critique by reflecting on the gender binary embedded in such policies and produced through epidemiological studies that attend differentially to females, reinforcing exclusionary practices that leave out those who form their gender identities across the spectrum. We then draw on deontological (duties-based) and utilitarian (utility-based) frameworks to show that these gendered policies are also unethical. These challenges to the assumptions underlying 'girls only' immunization programmes have implications for nurses and the healthcare system. If we are to advance equitable and ethical health outcomes, we entreat nurses as a collective to mobilize the public to lobby federal, provincial and territorial governments to fund more inclusive HPV vaccination policies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".