Factors Affecting Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Men: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the high risks associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), the HPV vaccination rate of men is far lower than women. Most previous review studies have focused on female vaccination and related affecting factors. However, previous studies have reported that the factors affecting HPV vaccination differ by gender. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify the factors affecting HPV vaccine initiation in men through a systematic review approach. METHODS: A literature review was conducted across 3 central electronic databases for relevant articles. A total of 30 articles published between 2013 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this study. RESULTS: In total, 50 factors affecting HPV vaccination in men were identified, including 13 sociodemographic factors and social structure factors, 12 belief-related variables, 4 family factors, 4 community factors, 14 variables related to needs, and 3 environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS: To increase HPV vaccination rates in men, strategies targeting young males and their families should consider frequent visits to or contact with health care providers so that health care professionals can provide recommendations for HPV vaccination.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".