Case-finding for HPV vaccination eligibility within a dental office with concurrent development of a dialogue tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization can prevent cancers, but uptake has been incomplete (and worse with the COVID-19 pandemic). Dental clinicians already screen for oral cancers, many of which are caused by HPV, and could identify vaccination candidates, but this requires a case-finding strategy. Objective: The purpose of this study was (1) to develop and test a case-finding approach to identify patients who were candidates for HPV vaccinations, (2) to test an HPV vaccination intervention by dental professionals on vaccination uptake. Methods: Design: Prospective, non-randomized feasibility case finding study with a 4-week enrollment period and a 6 week follow up period in general dental offices.Setting: Two general and non-commercial dentistry offices in Edmonton, Alberta Canada.Subjects: Consecutive scheduled (non-emergent) patients who met the Health Canada criteria for HPV vaccination: immunocompetent males and females aged 9-45 years and those who are immunocompromised. Consent for the discussion was obtained from each subject or parent.Intervention: Scheduled dental patients meeting the inclusion criteria were flagged by a research assistant who reviewed the appointment schedule each week for 4 weeks. For these subjects, dental clinicians (dentists and dental hygienists) used our Dental Dialogue Tool to discuss HPV vaccination and answer questions. Participating patients who consented to receive the HPV vaccine were given a prescription by the attending dentist and were directed to follow-up with a local pharmacy to have the vaccine administered. Each participant that was provided with an HPV prescription was contacted after 6 weeks to identify if they received the first dose of vaccine.Outcomes: Yield of our case-finding strategy and receipt of a patient's first HPV vaccine dose during 6 weeks post vaccine prescription. Results: Our case-finding strategy assessed 656 scheduled patients over 4 weeks. From this screening,179 (a case-finding yield of 20.4 %), were candidates for HPV vaccine discussion. Forty-three of these 179 patients (24 %) were already vaccinated.. Two patients (1.1 %) did not consent to be spoken with and 134 (74.8 %) consented to the HPV vaccine discussion.. Forty-eight of 134 patients (35.8 %) of patients accepted a prescription from the dentist after speaking with the dental clinician. Ultimately, 8/48 (16 %) (patients received their first dose of the HPV vaccine by the 6 week of follow-up call. However, this is only 4.5 % (8/177) of those patients who did consent for the discussion of HPV cancers and vaccination from their dentist. Conclusion: We demonstrated that case-finding for HPV vaccine candidates in general dental offices was feasible, with a reasonable yield. While the dental dialogue tool was described as a great resource to explain the facts and answer questions, very few patients were vaccinated after 6 weeks of follow-up. Further work is necessary to sharpen the intervention, perhaps including follow-up discussions with the dental clinicians.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".