HPV vaccination in male physicians: A survey of gynecologists and otolaryngology surgeons' attitudes towards vaccination in themselves and their patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attitudes and barriers towards HPV vaccination were explored in a population of male surgeons in Gynecology and Otolaryngology in Ontario, Canada. MATERIALS/METHODS: An internet-based survey was distributed to male residents and physicians affiliated with the departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Otolaryngology at six Ontario universities. The survey consisted of 16 questions (3 demographic, 3 workplace exposure, 6 regarding personal vaccination, and 3 regarding patient vaccination). Subgroup analyses examined differences between residents versus staff physicians and gynecologists versus otolaryngologists. RESULTS: Most respondents (51/63, 81.0%) had not been vaccinated against HPV, yet would consider vaccination in the future (41/51, 80.4%). Significantly more residents would consider vaccination compared to staff physicians (p = .03). Personal protection from benign HPV disease was the most common motivating factor (25/59, 42.4%) among participants. A notable barrier to vaccination was "age over recommendations" (9/44, 20.4%). Most participants would recommend the HPV vaccine to both male patients (49/62, 79.0%) and male partners of female patients (47/62, 75.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates male gynecologists and otolaryngologists had largely favorable attitudes towards HPV vaccination though few had received vaccination. These findings may be used to increase HPV vaccine uptake among male health care professionals and their patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".