Challenges related to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in Minnesota: clinician and stakeholder perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates among adolescents are increasing in Minnesota (MN) but remain below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% completion of the series. The goal of this study was to identify messaging and interventions impacting HPV vaccine uptake in MN through interviews with clinicians and key stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured key participant interviews with providers and stakeholders involved in HPV vaccination efforts in MN between 2018 and 2019. Provider interview questions focused on messaging around the HPV vaccine and clinic-based strategies to impact HPV vaccine uptake. Stakeholder interview questions focused on barriers and facilitators at the organizational or state level, as well as initiatives and collaborations to increase HPV vaccination. Responses to interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic content analysis was used to identify themes from interviews. RESULTS: 14 clinicians and 13 stakeholders were interviewed. Identified themes were grouped into 2 major categories that dealt with messaging around the HPV vaccine, direct patient-clinician interactions and external messaging, and a third thematic category involving healthcare system-related factors and interventions. The messaging strategy identified as most useful was promoting the HPV vaccine for cancer prevention. The need for stakeholders to prioritize HPV vaccination uptake was identified as a key factor to increasing HPV vaccination rates. Multiple providers and stakeholders identified misinformation spread through social media as a barrier to HPV vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: Emphasizing the HPV vaccine's cancer prevention benefits and prioritizing it among healthcare stakeholders were the most consistently cited strategies for promoting HPV vaccine uptake. Methods to combat the negative influence of misinformation about HPV vaccines in social media are an urgent priority.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".