Parental Decisional Strategies Regarding HPV Vaccination Before Media Debates: A Focus Group Study.
ABSTRACT Before the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, decisional strategies and factors that could guide HPV vaccination intentions were explored. The authors conducted 4 focus group discussions with 36 parents of children 8-15 years of age. Three groups consisted primarily of Dutch parents and 1 group of only Turkish parents. Discussions followed a semi-structured question route. Results showed that some parents used an approach of systematically seeking information as a way to prepare a decision, whereas others merely relied on trust in the message source. In general, parents believed that it was important to protect their child against negative outcomes that could result from vaccinating or not, and they felt that it is their responsibility to decide about uptake. Perceived susceptibility, vaccine effectiveness, and possibility of serious side effects were most important in the HPV vaccination decision-making process. In conclusion, parents perceived a lack of information and felt insecure about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. This may result in ambivalent feelings toward HPV vaccination, which, in turn, may lead to postponing decisions about uptake. To facilitate informed decision making, which requires central processing, personally relevant messages about the knowns and unknowns regarding the effects of HPV vaccination should be provided.
SourceAvailable from: Esther W. de Bekker-Grob[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BackgroundTo generate knowledge about potential improvements to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination information and organization strategies, we assessed how aspects of HPV vaccination are associated with parents’ preferences for their daughters’ uptake, and which trade-offs parents are willing to make between these aspects.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among parents with a daughter aged 10–12 years. Panel mixed logit regression models were used to determine parents’ preferences for vaccination. Trade-offs were quantified between four vaccination programme aspects: degree of protection against cervical cancer, duration of protection, risk of serious side-effects, and age of vaccination.ResultsTotal response rate was 302/983 (31%). All aspects influenced respondents’ preferences for HPV vaccination (p < 0.05). Respondents preferred vaccination at age 14 years instead of at a younger age. Respondents were willing to trade-off 11% of the degree of protection to obtain life-time protection instead of 25 years. To obtain a vaccination with a risk of serious side-effects of 1/750,000 instead of 1/150,000, respondents were willing to trade-off 21%.ConclusionsUptake may rise if the age ranges for free HPV vaccinations are broadened. Based on the trade-offs parents were willing to make, we conclude that uptake would increase if new evidence indicated outcomes are better than are currently understood, particularly for degree and duration of protection.BMC Public Health 05/2014; 14(1):454. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-14-454 · 2.32 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess among parents longitudinal predictors of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake for their daughters, random samples of parents were identified via municipal services and sent baseline questionnaires in June 2009 and follow-up questionnaires in November 2011 after their uptake decision. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether demographic characteristics, and affective and social cognitive factors, predicted uptake at follow-up. Response rates of the baseline and follow-up questionnaire were 29.8% (1762/5918) and 74.3% (793/1067), respectively. Uptake was predicted by a later (2011) versus earlier (2010) decision about uptake as HPV vaccination implementation [odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-5.52], anticipated regret about no uptake (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.89) and intention (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.47-4.61). There was an interaction between ambivalence and attitude (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.14-2.47); parents with a positive attitude and a high ambivalence toward vaccination were more likely to have their daughter vaccinated than parents with a positive attitude and a low ambivalence. An informed choice about uptake (5/7 correct items) was made by 44%. In conclusion, uptake was predicted by intention, a later (2011) versus earlier (2010) decision and by anticipated regret about no uptake. Decisions regarding new vaccines are difficult to make, we recommend a well-balanced implementation process.Health Education Research 09/2013; DOI:10.1093/her/cyt092 · 1.66 Impact Factor