Parents’ decision-making about the human papillomavirus vaccine for their daughters: I. Quantitative results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective primary prevention measure for HPV-related diseases. For children and young adolescents, the uptake of the vaccine is contingent on parental consent. This study sought to identify key differences between parents who obtain (acceptors) and parents who refuse (non-acceptors) the HPV vaccine for their daughters. In the context of a free, universal, school-based HPV vaccination program in Québec, 774 parents of 9-10 year-old girls completed and returned a questionnaire by mail. The questionnaire was based on the theoretical constructs of the Health Belief Model (HBM), along with constructs from other theoretical frameworks. Of the 774 parents, 88.2% reported their daughter having received the HPV vaccine. Perceived susceptibility of daughters to HPV infection, perceived benefits of the vaccine, perceived barriers (including safety of the vaccine), and cues to action significantly distinguished between parents whose daughters had received the HPV vaccine and those whose daughters had not. Other significant factors associated with daughter vaccine uptake were parents' general vaccination attitudes, anticipated regret, adherence to other routinely recommended vaccines, social norms, and positive media influence. The results of this study identify a number of important correlates related to parents' decisions to accept or refuse the HPV vaccine uptake for their daughters. Future work may benefit from targeting such factors and incorporating other health behavior theories in the design of effective HPV vaccine uptake interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".