Using the precaution adoption process model to clarify human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy in canadian parents of girls and parents of boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Achieving optimal human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake can be delayed by parents’ HPV vaccine hesitancy, which is as a multi-stage intention process rather than a dichotomous (vaccinated/not vaccinated) outcome. Our objective was to longitudinally explore HPV related attitudes, beliefs and knowledge and to estimate the effect of psychosocial factors on HPV vaccine acceptability in HPV vaccine hesitant parents of boys and girls.Methods: We used an online survey to collect data from a nationally representative sample of Canadian parents of 9–16 years old boys and girls in September 2016 and July 2017. Informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model, we categorized HPV vaccine hesitant parents into unengaged/undecided and decided not. Measures included sociodemographics, health behaviors and validated scales for HPV and HPV vaccine related attitudes, beliefs and knowledge. Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability were assessed with binomial logistic regression.Results: Parents of boys and girls categorized as “flexible” hesitant (i.e., unengaged/undecided) changed over time their HPV related attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and intentions to vaccinate compared to “rigid” hesitant (i.e., decided not) who remained largely unchanged. In “flexible” hesitant, greater social influence to vaccinate (e.g., from family), increased HPV knowledge, higher family income, white ethnicity and lower perception of harms (e.g., vaccine safety), were associated with higher HPV vaccine acceptability.Conclusions: HPV vaccine hesitant parents are not a homogenous group. We have identified significant predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability in “flexible” hesitant parents. Further research is needed to estimate associations between psychosocial factors and vaccine acceptability in “rigid” hesitant parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".