Exploring Predictors of HPV Vaccination Decisions: A Stage-Based Study on Chinese Parents of Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the predictors of Chinese parents of girls' decision stage about the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Patients and Methods: Two hundred and seventy-three parents of girls aged 9-17 with no HPV vaccination history were recruited to complete an online survey between September-December 2023. We assessed factors thought to influence decisions about HPV vaccination, including sociodemographics, HPV general knowledge, HPV vaccination knowledge, attitudes, and decisional conflict. Parents were asked to choose the decision stages among Stage 1 (have not thought), Stage 2 (considering), and Stage 3 (decided). Predictors of the decision stage were assessed with univariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Results: The parents of the three decision stages accounted for 48.4%, 29.7%, and 22.0%, respectively. Parents of older girls were more likely to be in the "considering" stage (OR = 1.29) than the "haven't thought" stage. A higher sense of being uninformed was associated with lower odds of being in the "considering" stage (OR = 0.97). Additionally, greater feelings of uncertainty were linked to lower odds of being in the "decided" stage (OR = 0.95) than the "haven't thought" stage. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of understanding the various stages of decision-making in HPV vaccination among Chinese parents. Parents' subjective feelings of being informed and certainty appear to be significant factors in advancing through the decision-making stages. Future research should develop and explore the impact of specific knowledge and valued based tools and decision aids.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".