MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321378521 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2023.2176640

Barriers and facilitators in uptake of human papillomavirus vaccine across English Canada: A review

2023· review· en· W4321378521 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amal Khan, Sylvia Abonyi, Cory Neudorf

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsHuman papillomavirusHuman papillomavirus vaccineMedicineIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePopulationCervixVaccinationCervical cancerImmunologyEnvironmental healthNursingCancerGardasilInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a highly contagious sexually transmitted infection that leads to preventable cancers of the mouth, throat, cervix, and genitalia. Despite the wide availability of HPV Vaccine (HPVV) in Canada, its uptake remains suboptimal. This review aims to identify factors (barriers and facilitators) in HPV vaccine uptake across English Canada at three levels (provider, system, and patient). We explored academic and gray literature to examine factors involved in HPVV uptake and synthesized results based on interpretive content analysis. The review identified the following factors of prime significance in the uptake of the HPV vaccine (a) at the provider level, 'acceptability' of the HPV vaccine, and 'appropriateness' of an intervention (b) at the patient level, the 'ability to perceive' and 'knowledge sufficiency' (c) at the system level, 'attitudes' of different players in vaccine programming, planning and delivery. Further research is needed to conduct population health intervention research in this area.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207