Enhancing HPV vaccine uptake in girls and boys – A qualitative analysis of Canadian school-based vaccination programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand barriers and enabling conditions for HPV vaccination in school-based vaccination programs in Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or in person with parents, nurses, and school staff ( n = 50) in three Canadian provinces. Interviews explored views on HPV and HPV vaccination, strengths and weaknesses of the school-based HPV vaccination programs and proposed interventions to increase uptake. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically using the socio-ecological model. Participants had positive views towards HPV vaccination and school-based offer. They identified barriers and enabling conditions at the individual and interpersonal level (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, behaviours of – and relationships between – parents, nurses, and school personnel), at the organizational level (e.g., allocated resources, information provision, process to ensure informed consent, vaccination setting and environment) and at the community and policy level (e.g., social group values and norms, media coverage around the HPV vaccine). Participants also suggested strategies to reduce identified barriers (e.g., communication interventions, simpler inform consent process). Different layers of barriers and enabling conditions of HPV vaccination in school settings were identified. Tailored interventions remain key to enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake. • Different barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination in school settings were identified by using the socio-ecological model. • Strategies to improve HPV vaccination include communication interventions and simplification of the information and consent process. • Enhanced collaboration between public health nurses and school personnel are key in achieving greater vaccine acceptance and uptake.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".