MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381193871 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.072

How can we improve the acceptability of vaccination against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in France? An original qualitative study with focus groups comprising parents and school staff, interviewed separately

2023· article· en· W4381193871 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Ailloud, Marion Branchereau, Estelle Fall, Catherine Juneau, Henri Partouche, Stéphanie Bonnay, Damien Oudin Doglioni, Morgane Michel, Amandine Gagneux‐Brunon, Sébastien Bruel, Nathalie Thilly, Aurélie Gauchet

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgence Régionale de Santé Île-de-FranceInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicalePublic Health AgencyNational Cancer InstituteInstitut National Du CancerInstitut pour la Recherche en Santé PubliqueAlliance Nationale pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisVaccinationQualitative researchGenital wartsPopulationMedicineCervical cancerFamily medicineHarmPsychologyEnvironmental healthImmunologyCancerSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been proven that vaccination is effective against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections, genital warts, and pre-cancerous and cancerous cervical lesions. Nevertheless, the HPV vaccine coverage of 37.4 % in 2021 in France is one of the lowest in Europe. To explore and understand the reason why French population is so late compared to its neighbours, we carried out focus groups with mothers and with National Education school staff. We aimed to identify knowledge and perceptions of HPV in both study populations, as well as factors influencing HPV vaccination. METHODS: Between January 2020 and March 2021, we performed a qualitative study using an inductive approach with a thematic content analysis (TCA). We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 29 people including 15 mothers of adolescents in middle schools and 14 school staff from the national education system. RESULTS: Different factors influenced the decision-making process of parents and school staff: knowledge and perceptions of HPV and its vaccine, sources of information about HPV and vaccination. Mothers' discourses differed from those of school staff. They mentioned the importance of gynaecological monitoring and the negative image of pharmaceutical companies, and questioned internet as a reliable source of information. For their part, school staff mentioned cultural and/or religious affiliation, municipalities' role to inform the population, and ethical dilemma or logistical challenges regarding HPV vaccination in schools. CONCLUSION: The results of these focus groups provided information on which elements may harm or help HPV vaccination. Identified perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, barriers, and facilitators will help us to build an intervention program focus on general practitioners (GP), school staff, parents, and adolescents.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207