Impact and acceptability of self-consent procedures for the school-based human papillomavirus vaccine: a mixed-methods study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, administered in early adolescence, can substantially reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality. However, lack of written parental consent is a key reason why some young women do not receive the vaccine. The national legal framework allows girls to be vaccinated without parental consent provided they are deemed Gillick competent, but there is some reticence about vaccinating without written parental consent. Self-consent procedures are being implemented in Bristol and South Gloucestershire. This study will examine the implementation, acceptability and impact of these new procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Statistical analyses of routine data from Public Health England and the Child Health Information System will test if there has been an increase in HPV vaccination uptake in two ways: (a) Is there an increase when comparing before and after the change in our intervention sites? and (b) Does the percentage change in our intervention sites differ from comparison sites (similar to our intervention sites in terms of initial HPV uptake, ethnicity and deprivation levels) in England where no such intervention took place and how? For the process evaluation, we will develop a logic model and use questionnaires, observations and audio-recorded interviews with young women, school nurses, school staff and parents to examine the context, implementation of self-consent and response to the new procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the National Health Service Health Research Authority provided approvals for the study. We will produce a report with recommendations about self-consent procedures in conjunction with key stakeholders. At least two papers will be written for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for conference presentations. A summary of results will be shared with participating immunisation nurses, school staff, young people and parents as requested. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49086105; Pre-results.
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 | 0.181 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.010 |
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".