Effect of educative reminder telephone calls on human papillomavirus immunization rate: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Human papillomavirus coverage varies widely among women depending on their race, incomes, geographical location and education level. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reminder educative phone calls increase human papillomavirus vaccination rates in adult women aged 18-45 with high-risk factors of cervical cancer. DESIGN: We conducted a single-blind randomized controlled trial in patients who consulted at a Canadian tertiary center in October 2019 during National Cervical Cancer Awareness Week. INTERVENTIONS: We randomized women to receive three standardized educative phone calls or standard care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We assessed the immunization rate at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were randomized of which 62 patients were randomized to the intervention. Eight patients (15.4%) got immunized at 6 months in the intervention group as compared to seven (11.7%) in the control group (p = 0.5645). The main barrier to vaccination reported by non-immunized patients at 6 months was the cost of vaccination (42.3%). CONCLUSION: Reminder educative phone calls did not increase human papillomavirus vaccination rates in adult women with risk factors of cervical cancer.ISRCTN registration number: ISRCTN58518971.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".