Tempest in a teapot: A systematic review of HPV vaccination and risk compensation research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been some concern among parents and in the media that vaccinating children against human papillomavirus could be seen as giving children permission to engage in risky sexual behaviors (also known as sexual disinhibition). Several studies have found this concern to be unfounded but there have been no attempts to synthesize the relevant studies in order to assess if there is evidence of sexual disinhibition. The aim of this study was to synthesize recent literature examining sexual behaviors and biological outcomes (e.g., sexually transmitted infections) post-HPV vaccination. We reviewed literature from January 1, 2008-June 30, 2015 using PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase with the following search terms: [(sex behavior OR sex behavior OR sexual) AND (human papillomavirus OR HPV) AND (vaccines OR vaccine OR vaccination)] followed by a cited reference search. We included studies that examined biological outcomes and reported behaviors post-vaccination in both males and females. Studies were reviewed by title and abstract and relevant studies were examined as full-text articles. We identified 2,503 articles and 20 were eventually included in the review. None of the studies of sexual behaviors and/or biological outcomes found evidence of riskier behaviors or higher rates of STIs after HPV vaccination. Instead, the studies found that vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals were less likely to report vaginal intercourse without a condom (OR = 0.5; 95%CI = 0.4-0.6) and non-use of contraception (OR = 0.27; 95%CI = 0.15-0.48) and unvaccinated participants had higher rates of Chlamydia (OR = 2.3; 95%CI = 1.06-5.00). These results should be reassuring to parents and health care providers.
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 | 0.015 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".