MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161990390 · doi:10.82308/51585

Cancer prevention and the human papillomavirus vaccine:psychosocial and behavioural factors involved in vaccination decision-making

2012· dissertation· en· W7161990390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Krawczyk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationPsychosocialPsychological interventionHuman papillomavirusCervical cancerCancer preventionIntervention (counseling)Young adult

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present thesis was to examine psychosocial and behavioural factors associated with the decision-making process involved in uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. In Canada, the HPV vaccine has been approved for women and men aged 9 to 26. Using the health belief model as a primary theoretical framework, the present dissertation examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of young adults making a vaccination decision for themselves and of parents making a vaccination decision for their daughters.Study 1 consisted of a cross-sectional survey exploring correlates of HPV vaccination among female university students who did not intend to receive, intended to receive, or had received the vaccine. The study results showed that social influences were important and unique factors related to young women's vaccination uptake. Study 2 examined male university students' knowledge and future vaccination intentions. The study differentiated between objective HPV knowledge, objective HPV vaccine knowledge, and perceived knowledge. The study results indicated that perceived knowledge and objective HPV vaccine knowledge were associated with vaccination intentions. Further, perceived knowledge was associated with young men's vaccination intentions even when accounting for objective HPV and HPV vaccine knowledge. Study 3 used a randomized controlled design to compare two types of educational interventions (written and video) designed to increase knowledge and acceptability of the HPV vaccine in both male and female university students. The study results showed that both the written and video interventions were effective in improving knowledge and vaccination intentions. However, no differences were found between the two intervention modalities. Finally, Study 4 identified key differences between parents who accepted and parents who refused the HPV vaccine for their young daughters. The study results indicate that perception of vaccine safety was the strongest factor associated with parental vaccination acceptance. Collectively, these four studies showed that HPV vaccination decision-making is a complex process and that perception of vaccine safety as well as social influences may be critical components of HPV vaccination decisions. Future research should build on these results by developing and testing comprehensive theories of vaccination decision making that include behavioural, social, and cognitive factors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→