MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200542101 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100128

The impact of publicly funded immunization programs on human papillomavirus vaccination in boys and girls: An observational study

2021· article· en· W4200542101 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gilla K. Shapiro, Ovidiu Tatar, Bärbel Knaüper, Gabrielle Griffin-Mathieu, Zeev Rosberger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity Health Network
FundersLady Davis Institute for Medical ResearchCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVaccinationOdds ratioObservational studyOddsPsychosocialLogistic regressionMedicineConfidence intervalImmunizationDemographyHuman papillomavirusFamily medicineImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Reaching and maintaining high global human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake has been challenging. The impact of publicly funded HPV immunization programs and the interplay of sociodemographic, psychosocial and policy factors in maximizing vaccination is poorly understood. This observational study examined the impact of introducing publicly funded school-based HPV vaccination programs for boys directly on uptake in boys and indirectly on uptake in girls, while concurrently examining other important sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. Methods: Data were collected from a national, longitudinal sample of Canadian parents of children aged 9-16 years during August-September 2016 (T1) and June-July 2017 (T2). Participants completed an online questionnaire measuring sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine knowledge and attitudes, health care provider recommendation, and HPV vaccine uptake. Analyses were conducted separately for parents of boys and girls using logistic regression analyses at T1 and T2. Jurisdictions with HPV vaccine funding for boys at both time-points were compared to those with funding at neither time-points and those that introduced funding between time-points. Findings: 843). In multivariable analyses, jurisdictions with funding for boys at both time-points had higher odds of vaccination (adjusted odds ratio, T1 = 10.18, T2 = 11.42; 95% confidence interval, T1 = 3.08-33.58, T2 = 5.61-23.23) than jurisdictions without funding at both time-points; however, funded jurisdictions did not have higher odds of vaccination compared to jurisdictions that newly introduced funding for boys. Vaccination was associated with consistent determinants in boys and girls including child's age, health care provider recommendation, perceived vaccine harms, and perceived vaccine affordability. Interpretation: This gender-sensitive analysis highlights the interplay of sociodemographic, psychosocial, and policy factors that can improve HPV vaccination. Publicly funded school-based programs are an impactful strategy to increase vaccine uptake. Funding: This work was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (#704,036). GKS was supported by the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship programs. The funders of this work had no role in the data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or any aspect pertinent to the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.568
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207