MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165332481 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.031

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among a community-recruited sample of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the three largest cities in Canada from 2017 to 2019

2021· article· en· W3165332481 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ramandip Grewal, Shelley L. Deeks, Trevor Hart, Joseph Cox, Alexandra de Pokomandy, Troy Grennan, Gilles Lambert, David Moore, Marc Brisson, François Coutlée, Mark Gaspar, Clemon George, Daniel Grace, Jody Jollimore, Nathan J. Lachowsky, Rosane Nisenbaum, Gina Ogilvie, Chantal Sauvageau, Darrell H. S. Tan, Anna Yeung, Ann N. Burchell

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité LavalAIDS VancouverMcGill UniversityCommunity Based Research CentreInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Immunization Research NetworkUniversity of TorontoMichael Smith Health Research BCPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaOntario HIV Treatment NetworkCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsHuman papillomavirusMen who have sex with menHomosexualityHuman papillomavirus vaccineDemographyPsychologyMedicineVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Cervical cancerSociologyGardasilInternal medicineSyphilisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2015/2016, Canada's largest provinces implemented publicly-funded human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) ≤ 26 years old. We sought to describe HPV vaccine uptake among GBM and determine barriers and facilitators to vaccine initiation with a focus on healthcare access and utilization. METHODS: Engage is a cohort study among GBM aged 16 + years in three Canadian cities recruited from 2017 to 2019 via respondent driven sampling (RDS). Men completed a comprehensive questionnaire at baseline. By publicly-funded vaccine eligibility (≤26 years old = eligible for vaccination, ≥27 years old = ineligible), we described HPV vaccine uptake (initiation = 1 + dose, completion = 3 doses) and explored factors associated with vaccine initiation using Poisson regression. All analyses were weighted with the RDS-II Volz-Heckathorn estimator. RESULTS: Across the three cities, 26-35% and 14-21% of men ≤ 26 years and 7-26% and 2-9% of men ≥ 27 years initiated and completed HPV vaccination, respectively. Vaccine initiation was significantly associated with STI/HIV testing or visiting a HIV care specialist in the past six months (≤26: prevalence ratio[PR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval[CI] 1.06-4.36; ≥27: PR = 2.73, 95%CI 1.14-6.51) and past hepatitis A or B vaccination (≤26: PR = 2.88, 95%CI 1.64-5.05; ≥27: PR = 2.03, 95%CI 1.07-3.86). Among men ≥ 27 years old, vaccine initiation was also positively associated with accessing PrEP, living in Vancouver or Toronto, but negatively associated with identifying as Latin American and increasing age. Vaccine initiation was twice as likely among men ≥ 27 years with private insurance versus no insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-five to 74% of men eligible for publicly-funded vaccine across the three cities remained unvaccinated against HPV by 2019. High vaccine cost may partly explain even lower uptake among men ≥ 27 years old. Men seeking sexual health care were more likely to initiate vaccination; bundling vaccination with these services may help improve HPV vaccine uptake.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207