Barriers to and facilitators of human papillomavirus vaccination in an ethnically diverse group of migrant parents: A qualitative mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A disparity in the uptake of the Human papillomavirus vaccine (HPVV) among immigrants and refugees leads to a social gradient in health. Recognizing that immigrants and refugees may encounter unique barriers to accessing prevention and care, this study seeks to determine barriers to and facilitators of HPVV among these subgroups to uncover high-resolution quality improvement targets of investment for under-immunized pockets of the population. The study undertook a qualitative inquiry into understanding immigrant and refugee parents’ perspectives on HPV infection and HPVV experience through school-based programs. We collected data first through short online surveys (N = 15) followed by one-on-one interviews (N = 15) and then through detailed online surveys (N = 16) followed by focus group discussions (N = 3) with 4–6 participants per group discussion from different groups: Black, South Asian and West Asian. Analysis of surveys and interviews identified that: information, awareness, and education about HPV infection and HPVV were among the most cited barriers that impede the uptake of HPVV. Moreover, vaccine-related logistics were equally important, including not having immunization information packages in different languages and relying solely on the child to bring home packages in paper copies from school-based vaccine programs. A multi-component intervention remains instrumental in enhancing HPV immunization rates, given the inconsistent uptake of HPVV by these subgroups who voice unique barriers and facilitators. An educational campaign that involves educating parents who consent for their child(ren) for HPVV, the children receiving the vaccination, and training staff providing HPVV through school-based immunization programs would be paramount.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".