Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Pediatrics

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

White, affluent, educated parents are least likely to choose HPV vaccination for their children: a cross-sectional study of the National Immunization Study – teen

  • Echo L. Warner1, 2Email author,
  • Qian Ding2,
  • Lisa M. Pappas6,
  • Kevin Henry3, 4 and
  • Deanna Kepka1, 5
BMC PediatricsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:200

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0953-2

Received: 16 June 2017

Accepted: 20 November 2017

Published: 1 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage is below national goals in the United States. Research is needed to inform strategically designed interventions that target sociodemographic groups with underutilization of HPV vaccination.

Methods

Secondary data analysis of the National Immunization Survey-Teen 2013 measured association of sociodemographic factors (e.g., ethnicity/race, insurance) with HPV vaccination among females and males ages 13–17 (N = 18,959). Chi-square and multivariable Poisson regressions were conducted using survey-weighted statistics.

Results

Having a mother ≥35 years, a mother with some college, being of “Other” ethnicity/race, and having no providers who order vaccines from health departments was negatively associated with females initiating HPV vaccination. Having a mother with some college, being of Non-Hispanic White or “Other” ethnicity/race, and having some or no providers who order vaccines from health departments was negatively associated with males initiating HPV vaccination. These same factors were negatively associated with males completing HPV vaccination with the exception of “Other” ethnicity/race. In contrast, having an unmarried mother, being ages 15–17, having a hospital based provider, and receiving other adolescent vaccinations were positively associated with females initiating and completing HPV vaccination. Having an unmarried mother, health insurance that is not employer or union sponsored, and influenza and meningitis vaccinations was positively associated with male’s initiating HPV vaccination. For males, being 15 or 17 years old and having other adolescent vaccinations was positively associated with vaccine completion. All findings p ≤ 0.05.

Conclusions

Future HPV vaccination interventions may benefit from targeting certain sociodemographic groups that were negatively associated with HPV vaccination in this study.

Keywords

AdolescentEthnicityGenderHPVMales

Background

Vaccination for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is below Healthy People 2020 goals of 80% completion (three doses) among adolescents in the United States (U.S.) [1]. While missed opportunities for HPV vaccination and provider recommendation of the HPV vaccine influence parents’ and adolescents’ decisions to vaccinate [2, 3], other sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, ethnicity, insurance status etc.) play a key role in identifying groups of individuals who are least likely to receive the HPV vaccine.

Multiple systematic reviews have been completed on HPV vaccination and sociodemographic factors that are associated with HPV vaccination. A review of HPV beliefs and acceptability of the HPV vaccine summarized that parents with lower education are more accepting of the HPV vaccine, but presented mixed findings on the influence of insurance status, educational level, ethnicity/race, and household income on HPV vaccination [4]. Another review of the literature identified barriers to HPV vaccination among healthcare providers (e.g., providing only risk-based recommendations, financial challenges including cost to parents and lack of insurance reimbursement), parents and caregivers (e.g., lack of information or provider recommendation, concerns about cost and side effects), and underserved populations (e.g., limited information, being uninsured, low completion of series) [5]. These summaries of the literature provide context for studying and interpreting associations of sociodemographic factors with HPV vaccination using a national dataset of adolescent immunizations, the National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen).

In the U.S., the NIS-Teen has been previously used to study relationships between sociodemographic factors and HPV vaccination patterns [610]. One study analyzing NIS-Teen data spanning 2008–2011 found that HPV vaccination patterns differ from other adolescent vaccinations in that below-poverty adolescents and minority race/ethnicity adolescents had higher series initiation compared to above-poverty and white adolescents [6]. In addition to poverty status and race/ethnicity, there are other social factors that have been associated with HPV vaccination including older adolescent age, being seen in public or hospital facilities, and having received other adolescent vaccinations [4, 10, 11].

Furthermore, gender differences exist in the HPV vaccination literature, with males being less likely to know about HPV and the HPV vaccine [1214], and less likely to receive the HPV vaccine compared to females. In 2013, only 6.8% of boys completed three doses of the HPV vaccine, compared to 33.4% girls [15]. It is possible that differential initiation and completion of the HPV vaccine by gender may be due to the HPV vaccine being recommended for the first time in 2006 for girls and later for boys in 2011 [16, 17]. However, existing literature suggests that HPV vaccination is lower for boys because parents are unaware that boys can receive and benefit from HPV vaccines, both parents and providers prefer to vaccinate females over males, and concerns about costs [5, 14].

The primary objective of this study was to identify sociodemographic factors of individuals who are least likely to initiate and complete HPV vaccination. We hypothesized that younger adolescents would be less likely to be vaccinated than older adolescents, and that adolescents who had received other vaccinations would be more likely to be vaccinated compared to adolescents who had not received other vaccinations. We perform separate analyses to evaluate associations of sociodemographic factors with HPV vaccination for girls and boys based on the previously mentioned literature of differential HPV vaccination by gender. This study expands prior research by using the NIS-Teen to determine whether patterns of sociodemographic factors that have previously been associated with HPV vaccination persist in a more recent national NIS-Teen survey. To our knowledge, this study is the first to determine associations between sociodemographic factors with HPV vaccination using NIS-Teen data collected in 2013.

Methods

Study design and setting

A secondary cross-sectional data analysis of NIS-Teen 2013 data was performed to measure the association of sociodemographic factors with HPV vaccination among adolescents ages 13–17. The NIS-Teen is a publicly available, nationally representative survey with a complex sampling design [18]. Annually, the NIS-Teen surveys parents (telephone) and adolescent healthcare providers (mailed). In 2013, NIS-Teen household response rates were: cellular (23.3%) and landline (51.1%) [19]. The 2013 NIS-Teen sample is documented elsewhere, including the number of participants screened at each stage of the study and reasons for exclusion and nonresponse [19]. Analysis of publicly available data is considered exempt by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Participants and sample size

Parents consented to have their adolescent’s provider contacted to verify vaccine receipt [19, 20]. While 68.3% of landline and 65.0% of cellular respondents agreed to have their adolescent’s provider contacted, only a total of 55.8% of all respodnents had sufficient provider-verified vaccination records to be included in the study [19]. Reasons for inadequate provider data included lack of parent/guardian consent to contact their adolescent’s provider, provider non-response, or inadequate information to contact providers [19]. Records with provider-verified immunization records from NIS-Teen 2013 were included (N = 18,959).

Outcome variables

Outcomes included provider verified initiation (≥1 dose of the HPV vaccine) and completion (3 doses of the HPV vaccine) of the HPV vaccine. Variable weights adjust for respondents with missing provider data.

Sociodemographic variables

The Social Ecological Framework (SEF) is a five-level framework of influence comprising: individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public policy factors [21]. Individual (e.g., teen’s age, poverty, ethnicity, and vaccination status), interpersonal (e.g., mother’s age, education, and marital status), and organizational (e.g., facility type for teen’s providers and provider’s vaccination ordering history) levels of influence were assessed herein. Marital status “other” category includes: never married, widowed, divorced, separated, and deceased. Ethnicity/race of teens “other” category includes: Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Other, and Multiple Race. Groupings of sociodemographic variables were selected were selected a priori based on clinical relevance, existing literature, and prior research using NIS-Teen data [7, 8, 10].

Statistical analysis

Provider-phase sampling weights were used to produce dual-frame point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Listwise deletion was used to handle records with missing values. Frequency counts and survey-weighted percentages were reported for gender subgroups separately to minimize bias. For both unordered and ordered categorical variables, so that even a nonlinear association could be detected, a survey weighted Pearson chi-square test was used to compare distributions of sociodemographic variables between those who initiated and completed HPV vaccination to those who did not. Survey weighted multivariable Poisson regressions were fitted to assess the association of selected sociodemographic variables, reported as adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% CI. Sociodemographic variables were assessed for multicollinearity and all variables were maintained in the final models. All tests were two-sided comparisons in STATA version 14.0; p < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Participants, sociodemographics, and HPV vaccination

Most mothers had at least high school education and were married. Adolescents were primarily living above poverty level, Non-Hispanic White, and on private health insurance. Univariate analyses indicated sociodemographic associations between HPV vaccine initiation and completion for females (Table 1): mother’s education, marital status (initiation only), poverty status, and teen’s ethnicity/race, age, providers’ facility type, providers ordering vaccines from state/local health departments (initiation only), and other recommended adolescent vaccinations (i.e., influenza, TDAP, Meningitis), all p < 0.05. For males: mother’s education, poverty status (initiation only), marital status (initiation only), and teen’s ethnicity/race, source of health insurance, providers ordering vaccines from state/local health departments (initiation only), and other recommended adolescent vaccinations (i.e., influenza, TDAP, Meningitis), all p < 0.05.
Table 1

Adolescent and parental sociodemographic characteristics, a NIS-Teen 2013

FEMALES

Characteristic

≥1 dose of HPV vaccine

HPV vaccine completionc

No (N = 3776)

Yes (N = 5098)

No (N = 5484)

Yes (N = 3390)

N (%)b

N (%)b

N (%)b

N (%)b

Age (Mother/Parent)

  ≤34 years old

291 (37.1)

497 (62.9)

512 (64.4)

276 (35.6)

 35–44 years old

1643 (44.2)

2048 (55.8)

2373 (64.3)

1318 (35.7)

  ≥ 45 years old

1842 (42.5)

2553 (57.5)

2599 (60.1)

1796 (39.9)

Education (Mother)

  < High school

329 (28.9)

629 (71.1)

567 (55.1)

391 (45.0)

 High school

637 (40.8)

925 (59.2)

959 (60.1)

603 (40.0)

 Some college

1123 (48.1)

1328 (51.9)

1585 (67.1)

866 (32.9)

 College graduate

1687 (45.2)

2216 (54.8)

2373 (63.3)

1530 (36.7)

Poverty status

 Above poverty (>$75 k)

1716 (44.7)

2203 (55.4)

2376 (61.5)

1543 (38.5)

 Above poverty (<=$75 k)

1469 (46.2)

1765 (53.8)

2118 (65.7)

1116 (34.4)

 Below poverty

505 (33.2)

1009 (66.8)

863 (58.5)

651 (41.5)

 Missing, n (%)

207 (2.33)

207 (2.33)

Marital status of mother

 Married

2838 (45.5)

3483 (54.5)

3957 (63.0)

2364 (37.0)

 Otherd

938 (37.4)

1615 (62.6)

1527 (61.3)

1026 (38.7)

Ethnicity/Race of teens

 Hispanic

427 (32.5)

862 (67.5)

732 (55.2)

557 (44.8)

 Non-Hispanic White

2642 (46.9)

3135 (53.1)

3645 (65.1)

2132 (34.9)

 Otherd

707 (41.9)

1101 (58.1)

1107 (62.3)

701 (37.7)

Age in years of selected teen

 13 years old

941 (49.4)

901 (50.6)

1381 (74.2)

452 (25.8)

 14 years old

847 (44.9)

1020 (55.1)

1255 (67.9)

608 (32.1)

 15 years old

738 (41.2)

1082 (58.8)

1079 (60.6)

729 (39.5)

 16 years old

701 (40.0)

1147 (60.0)

1004 (56.9)

828 (43.1)

 17 years old

549 (37.7)

1001 (62.3)

765 (51.8)

773 (48.2)

Source of health insurance for teens

 Provided through employment or union

2540 (44.3)

3198 (55.7)

3553 (62.1)

2185 (38.0)

 Not Provided through employment or union

1187 (40.6)

1834 (59.4)

1858 (63.0)

1163 (37.0)

 Missing, n (%)

115 (1.30)

115 (1.30)

Facility type for teen’s providers

 All public facilities

592 (43.4)

710 (56.6)

897 (67.5)

405 (32.5)

 All hospital facilities

317 (32.8)

530 (67.2)

459 (56.1)

388 (44.0)

 All private facilities

1707 (42.6)

2296 (57.4)

2416 (60.2)

1587 (39.8)

 Mixed/Other

1055 (45.1)

1486 (54.9)

1573 (64.7)

968 (35.3)

 Missing, n (%)

181 (2.04)

181 (2.04)

Do teen’s providers order vaccination from states/ local health department

 All providers

2487 (41.1)

3569 (58.9)

3683 (61.7)

2373 (38.2)

 Some but possibly not all

511 (41.0)

735 (59.0)

768 (63.1)

478 (36.9)

 No providers

453 (51.2)

444 (48.8)

590 (64.1)

307 (36.0)

 Don’t know

278 (43.6)

350 (56.4)

396 (62.5)

232 (37.5)

 Missing, n (%)

47 (0.53)

47 (0.53)

Influenza vaccinatione

 No

2697 (55.7)

2218 (44.3)

3594 (74.1)

1321 (25.9)

 Yes

1079 (25.2)

2880 (74.8)

1890 (46.6)

2069 (53.4)

TDAP vaccinationf

 No

1359 (54.0)

1067 (46.0)

1838 (75.8)

588 (24.2)

 Yes

2417 (38.0)

4031 (62.0)

3646 (56.8)

2802 (43.2)

Meningitis vaccinationg

 No

1558 (77.7)

558 (22.3)

1833 (90.4)

283 (9.6)

 Yes

2218 (32.8)

4540 (67.2)

3651 (54.4)

3107 (45.6)

MALES

Characteristic

≥1 dose of HPV vaccine

HPV vaccine completionc

No (N = 6522)

Yes (N = 3231)

No (N = 8375)

Yes (N = 1378)

N (%)b

N (%)b

N (%)b

N (%)b

Age(Mother/Parent)

  ≤ 34 years old

528 (59.6)

334 (40.4)

743 (85.8)

119 (14.2)

 35–44 years old

2840 (64.7)

1301 (35.3)

3606 (87.4)

535 (12.6)

  ≥ 45 years old

3154 (67.3)

1596 (32.7)

4026 (84.9)

724 (15.1)

Education (Mother)

  < High school

622 (53.0)

464 (47.0)

898 (79.2)

188 (20.9)

 High school

1182 (63.3)

574 (36.8)

1525 (86.2)

231 (13.8)

 Some college

1912 (72.1)

770 (27.9)

2365 (88.9)

317 (11.1)

 College graduate

2806 (66.9)

1423 (33.1)

3587 (86.8)

642 (13.2)

Poverty status

 Above poverty (>$75 k)

2919 (70.7)

1352 (29.3)

3649 (87.2)

622 (12.8)

 Above poverty (<=$75 k)

2510 (67.8)

1064 (32.2)

3132 (86.9)

442 (13.1)

 Below poverty

936 (53.3)

739 (46.7)

1384 (83.3)

291 (16.7)

 Missing, n (%)

233 (2.39)

233 (2.39)

Marital status of mother

 Married

4881 (68.6)

2184 (31.4)

6109 (86.7)

956 (13.3)

 Otherd

1641 (59.3)

1047 (40.7)

2266 (85.1)

422 (14.9)

Ethnicity/Race of teens

 Hispanic

814 (50.4)

657 (49.6)

1191 (79.7)

280 (20.3)

 Non-Hispanic White only

4471 (73.3)

1835 (26.7)

5480 (88.9)

826 (11.1)

 Otherd

1237 (61.7)

739 (38.3)

1704 (86.1)

272 (13.9)

Age in years of selected teen

 13 years old

1361 (66.5)

614 (33.5)

1736 (88.3)

239 (11.7)

 14 years old

1381 (64.9)

672 (35.1)

1777 (86.4)

276 (13.6)

 15 years old

1262 (63.8)

652 (36.2)

1632 (84.7)

282 (15.4)

 16 years old

1305 (64.1)

714 (35.9)

1702 (86.3)

317 (13.7)

 17 years old

1213 (67.9)

579 (32.1)

1528 (84.9)

264 (15.1)

Source of health insurance for teens

 Provided through employment or union

4359 (70.6)

1885 (29.4)

5395 (87.5)

849 (12.5)

 Not Provided through employment or union

2061 (58.6)

1297 (41.4)

2845 (84.4)

513 (15.6)

 Missing, n (%)

151 (1.55)

   

Facility type for teen’s providers

 All public facilities

984 (67.1)

421 (32.9)

1239 (87.7)

166 (12.3)

 All hospital facilities

607 (61.6)

380 (38.4)

826 (84.5)

161 (15.5)

 All private facilities

2973 (65.7)

1522 (34.3)

3829 (85.8)

666 (14.2)

 Mixed/Other

1812 (65.3)

853 (34.7)

2299 (87.3)

366 (12.8)

 Missing, n (%)

201 (2.06)

201 (2.06)

Do teen’s providers order vaccination from states/ local health department

 All providers

4345 (62.8)

2410 (37.3)

5723 (84.9)

1032 (15.1)

 Some but possibly not all

925 (67.6)

387 (32.5)

1158 (88.7)

154 (11.3)

 No providers

745 (73.5)

225 (26.5)

871 (88.2)

99 (11.8)

 Don’t know

458 (71.8)

209 (28.2)

574 (89.1)

93 (10.9)

 Missing, n (%)

49 (0.50)

49 (0.50)

Influenza vaccinatione

 No

4263 (78.1)

1109 (21.9)

4976 (92.9)

396 (7.1)

 Yes

2259 (48.7)

2122 (51.3)

3399 (77.2)

982 (22.8)

TDAP vaccinationf

 No

2147 (76.3)

635 (23.7)

2561 (92.0)

221 (8.0)

 Yes

4375 (61.2)

2596 (38.8)

5814 (83.9)

1157 (16.1)

Meningitis vaccinationg

 No

2151 (92.8)

154 (7.2)

2249 (97.5)

56 (2.5)

 Yes

4371 (57.5)

3077 (42.5)

6126 (82.9)

1322 (17.1)

aAdolescents with adequately complete provider-reported immunization records in the 2013 NIS-Teen survey were included in our analysis. Respondents from the U.S. Virgin Islands were excluded

bUnweighted frequencies and weighted percentages from Dual-Frame Sampling Weights

cHPV completion includes those who had received at least 3 doses of the HPV vaccine and is potentially overlapping with ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine

dMarital status “other” category includes: never married/widowed/divorced/separated/deceased. Ethnicity/race of teens “other” category includes: Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic Other & Multiple Race

eAdolescent has taken at least one dose of seasonal influenza vaccination in the past three years

fAdolescent has taken at least one dose of TDAP only vaccination since age 10 years old and before 13 years old

gAdolescent has taken at least one dose of Meningitis vaccination

Among female adolescents, 57.4% (n = 5098/8874) had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine and 38.2% (n = 3390/8874) had received 3 doses of the HPV vaccine. In comparison, only 33.1% of male adolescents had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine (n = 3231/9753), and 14.1% had received three doses of the HPV vaccine (n = 1378/9753).

Females’ Sociodemographics and HPV initiation and completion

In Table 2, compared with mothers ≤34 years old, mothers aged 35–44 years and ≥45 years had lower prevalence of a daughter with HPV vaccine initiation (PR = 0.87, p ≤ 0.01). Mothers with some college had lower prevalence of a daughter who had initiated HPV vaccination than mothers with <High school education (PR = 0.90, p = 0.03). Unmarried mothers had higher prevalence of a daughter with HPV vaccine initiation (PR = 1.15, p < 0.01), and completion (PR = 1.12, p = 0.04) than married mothers. Compared to Hispanic female adolescents, females with Other race had lower prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation (PR = 0.91, p = 0.05). Female adolescents aged 15, 16, and 17 years had higher prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation (PR = 1.21–1.34, p < 0.01), and those aged 14, 15, 16, and 17 years had higher prevalence of completion (PR = 1.24–2.17, p ≤ .01) compared to 13-year olds. Female adolescents who saw providers in a hospital facility had higher prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation (PR = 1.11, p = 0.04) and completion (PR = 1.23, p = 0.05) than those who saw providers in public facilities. Female adolescents with no providers who utilized state/local health departments for vaccine supplies had lower prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation than those with all providers sourcing vaccine supplies from state/local health departments (PR = 0.89, p = 0.03). Female adolescents who had received seasonal influenza (PR = 1.46, p < 0.01), TDAP (PR = 1.09, p < 0.03), and meningitis (PR = 2.49, p < 0.01) vaccinations at recommended intervals had higher prevalence of initiating HPV vaccination as well as completing the HPV vaccine series (influenza: PR = 1.73, p < 0.01, TDAP: PR = 1.49, p < 0.01, and meningitis: PR = 3.35, p < 0.01) than those who were unvaccinated. Poverty status and type of health insurance for teens were not associated with HPV vaccination in multivariable analyses of female adolescents.
Table 2

Multivariable analysis of factors associated with HPV initiation and completion among female and male adolescents, NIS-Teen 2013a

FEMALES

 

≥1 dose of HPV vaccine (N = 8256)

HPV vaccine completion (N = 8256)

 

Adjusted vaccination coverageb % (95%CI)

Adjusted prevalence ratio (95%CI)c

p-value

Adjusted vaccination coverageb % (95%CI)

Adjusted prevalence ratio (95%CI)c

p-value

Age(Mother/Parent)

  ≤ 34 years old

64.9 (59.1, 70.7)

Reference

 

41.7 (35.3, 48.1)

Reference

 

 35–44 years old

56.4 (53.6, 59.1)

0.87 (0.79, 0.96)

<0.01

36.8 (34.0, 39.6)

0.88 (0.75, 1.05)

0.15

  ≥ 45 years old

56.8 (54.1, 59.4)

0.87 (0.79, 0.97)

0.01

37.5 (34.8, 40.2)

0.90 (0.76, 1.07)

0.23

Education (Mother)

  < High school

61.7 (56.9, 66.5)

Reference

 

39.8 (33.2, 46.4)

Reference

 

 High school

59.1 (55.2, 62.9)

0.96 (0.87, 1.05)

0.35

41.6 (37.3, 45.9)

1.04 (0.87, 1.25)

0.63

 Some college

55.2 (51.7, 58.7)

0.90 (0.81, 0.99)

0.03

34.6 (31.2, 37.9)

0.87 (0.72, 1.05)

0.15

 College graduate

56.1 (52.9, 59.3)

0.91 (0.82, 1.01)

0.07

36.2 (33.0, 39.4)

0.91 (0.74, 1.11)

0.36

Poverty status

 Above poverty (>$75 k)

57.5 (54.0, 61.0)

Reference

 

37.9 (34.1, 41.6)

Reference

 

 Above poverty (<=$75 k)

55.4 (52.5, 58.4)

0.96 (0.89, 1.04)

0.35

36.5 (33.4, 39.5)

0.96 (0.85, 1.09)

0.55

 Below poverty

60.1 (56.0, 64.3)

1.05 (0.94, 1.16)

0.39

38.7 (33.8, 43.6)

1.02 (0.85, 1.23)

0.82

Marital status of mother

 Married

54.5 (52.1, 56.8)

Reference

 

36.1 (33.7, 38.4)

Reference

 

 Otherd

62.7 (59.5, 65.8)

1.15 (1.08, 1.23)

<0.01

40.4 (36.9, 43.8)

1.12 (1.01, 1.25)

0.04

Ethnicity/Race of teens

 Hispanic

61.1 (56.8, 65.4)

Reference

 

41.2 (36.1, 46.2)

Reference

 

 Non-Hispanic White only

56.5 (54.1, 59.0)

0.93 (0.85, 1.01)

0.07

36.4 (34.0, 38.7)

0.88 (0.77, 1.02)

0.09

 Otherd

55.9 (52.4, 59.4)

0.91 (0.84, 1.00)

0.05

37.0 (33.5, 40.5)

0.90 (0.78, 1.04)

0.16

Age in years of selected teen

 13 years old

48.7 (45.2, 52.2)

Reference

 

24.3 (21.0, 27.7)

Reference

 

 14 years old

53.0 (49.2, 56.7)

1.09 (0.99, 1.19)

0.08

30.2 (26.7, 33.7)

1.24 (1.04, 1.48)

0.01

 15 years old

59.0 (55.1, 62.8)

1.21 (1.10, 1.33)

<0.01

39.6 (35.5, 43.7)

1.63 (1.38, 1.92)

<0.01

 16 years old

62.6 (58.7, 66.5)

1.28 (1.17, 1.41)

<0.01

45.4 (41.1, 49.6)

1.86 (1.58, 2.19)

<0.01

 17 years old

65.1 (60.7, 69.5)

1.34 (1.21, 1.47)

<0.01

52.8 (48.0, 57.5)

2.17 (1.84, 2.55)

<0.01

Source of health insurance for teens

 Provided through employment or union

57.0 (54.4, 59.5)

Reference

 

37.5 (34.9, 40.2)

Reference

 

 Not Provided through employment or union

58.0 (54.7, 61.2)

1.02 (0.94, 1.10)

0.65

37.6 (34.0, 41.1)

1.00 (0.88, 1.14)

0.99

Facility type for teen’s providers

 All public facilities

58.2 (53.8, 62.7)

Reference

 

34.0 (28.8, 39.3)

Reference

 

 All hospital facilities

64.7 (59.7, 69.7)

1.11 (1.00, 1.23)

0.04

41.9 (35.7, 48.0)

1.23 (1.00, 1.51)

0.05

 All private facilities

57.1 (54.4, 59.9)

0.98 (0.90, 1.07)

0.67

38.6 (35.9, 41.3)

1.13 (0.96, 1.34)

0.14

 Mixed/Other

55.0 (51.3, 58.6)

0.94 (0.86, 1.04)

0.25

35.9 (32.3, 39.6)

1.06 (0.88, 1.27)

0.57

Do teen’s providers order vaccination from states/ local health department

 All providers

57.8 (55.6, 60.0)

Reference

 

37.7 (35.5, 39.9)

Reference

 

 Some but possibly not all

60.3 (54.7, 65.9)

1.04 (0.94, 1.15)

0.39

37.4 (31.7, 43.0)

0.99 (0.84, 1.16)

0.91

 No providers

51.5 (46.1, 56.8)

0.89 (0.80, 0.99)

0.03

37.5 (32.2, 42.8)

1.00 (0.86, 1.16)

0.95

 Don’t know

57.5 (50.0, 64.9)

0.99 (0.87, 1.14)

0.94

36.8 (30.1, 43.6)

0.98 (0.81, 1.18)

0.81

Influenza vaccinatione

 No

47.4 (44.8, 50.0)

Reference

 

28.1 (25.6, 30.6)

Reference

 

 Yes

69.2 (66.8, 71.6)

1.46 (1.37, 1.55)

<0.01

48.5 (45.8, 51.3)

1.73 (1.56, 1.91)

<0.01

TDAP vaccinationf

 No

53.7 (49.7, 57.6)

Reference

 

27.5 (23.9, 31.1)

Reference

 

 Yes

58.6 (56.5, 60.7)

1.09 (1.01, 1.18)

0.03

40.9 (38.7, 43.2)

1.49 (1.29, 1.72)

<0.01

Meningitis vaccinationg

 No

26.0 (22.3, 29.8)

Reference

 

12.7 (10.1, 15.3)

Reference

 

 Yes

64.8 (62.7, 67.0)

2.49 (2.15, 2.89)

<0.01

42.6 (40.3, 44.8)

3.35 (2.71, 4.15)

<0.01

MALES

 

≥1 dose of HPV vaccine (N = 9003)

 

HPV vaccine completion (N = 9003)

 
 

Adjusted vaccination coverageb % (95%CI)

Adjusted prevalence ratio (95%CI)c

p-value

Adjusted vaccination coverageb % (95%CI)

Adjusted prevalence ratio (95%CI)c

p-value

Age(Mother/Parent)

  ≤ 34 years old

35.0 (30.3, 39.8)

Reference

 

12.9 (9.4, 16.5)

Reference

 

 35–44 years old

35.2 (32.5, 37.8)

1.00 (0.87, 1.16)

0.97

12.6 (10.6, 14.5)

0.97 (0.71, 1.33)

0.87

  ≥ 45 years old

33.4 (30.6, 36.2)

0.95 (0.81, 1.12)

0.57

14.9 (12.7, 17.1)

1.15 (0.83, 1.60)

0.40

Education (Mother)

  < High school

35.2 (30.4, 39.9)

Reference

 

18.2 (13.4, 23.1)

Reference

 

 High school

34.6 (30.8, 38.3)

0.98 (0.84, 1.14)

0.82

13.5 (10.4, 16.6)

0.74 (0.53, 1.03)

0.08

 Some college

29.6 (26.5, 32.7)

0.84 (0.71, 1.00)

0.05

11.4 (9.3, 13.5)

0.62 (0.45, 0.86)

<0.01

 College graduate

37.4 (33.7, 41.1)

1.06 (0.89, 1.28)

0.51

13.2 (11.1, 15.4)

0.73 (0.52, 1.02)

0.06

Poverty status

 Above poverty (>$75 k)

34.4 (30.6, 38.2)

Reference

 

14.8 (11.8, 17.9)

Reference

 

 Above poverty (<=$75 k)

32.7 (29.7, 35.7)

0.95 (0.83, 1.09)

0.47

13.1 (10.8, 15.4)

0.88 (0.70, 1.11)

0.30

 Below poverty

36.5 (32.5, 40.6)

1.06 (0.88, 1.27)

0.52

13.0 (10.1, 16.0)

0.88 (0.61, 1.27)

0.49

Marital status of mother

 Married

32.7 (30.4, 35.1)

Reference

 

13.6 (11.9, 15.4)

Reference

 

 Otherd

37.2 (34.1, 40.4)

1.14 (1.02, 1.27)

0.02

13.6 (11.4, 15.8)

1.00 (0.81, 1.23)

0.98

Ethnicity/Race of teens

 Hispanic

43.3 (38.8, 47.8)

Reference

 

16.2 (12.9, 19.4)

Reference

 

 Non-Hispanic White

29.5 (27.3, 31.6)

0.68 (0.60, 0.77)

<0.01

12.3 (10.7, 13.8)

0.76 (0.60, 0.96)

0.02

 Otherd

35.7 (32.1, 39.4)

0.83 (0.72, 0.95)

<0.01

13.9 (11.4, 16.5)

0.86 (0.66, 1.12)

0.26

Age in years of selected teen

 13 years old

32.0 (28.4, 35.6)

Reference

 

11.4 (8.8, 14.1)

Reference

 

 14 years old

33.0 (29.7, 36.3)

1.03 (0.90, 1.19)

0.67

11.5 (9.1, 13.9)

1.01 (0.74, 1.37)

0.96

 15 years old

35.9 (31.8, 40.1)

1.12 (0.96, 1.31)

0.14

15.9 (12.4, 19.3)

1.39 (1.01, 1.90)

0.04

 16 years old

36.1 (32.3, 39.8)

1.13 (0.97, 1.31)

0.11

12.9 (10.5, 15.3)

1.13 (0.84, 1.52)

0.41

 17 years old

35.7 (31.5, 39.9)

1.12 (0.95, 1.31)

0.18

17.5 (14.2, 20.8)

1.53 (1.13, 2.05)

<0.01

Source of health insurance for teens

 Provided through employment or union

31.2 (28.7, 33.8)

Reference

 

12.6 (10.9, 14.3)

Reference

 

 Not Provided through employment or union

38.3 (35.1, 41.5)

1.23 (1.08, 1.39)

<0.01

15.0 (12.4, 17.6)

1.18 (0.93, 1.51)

0.17

Facility type for teen’s providers

 All public facilities

32.8 (27.9, 37.7)

Reference

 

13.5 (9.2, 17.8)

Reference

 

 All hospital facilities

37.0 (32.8, 41.2)

1.13 (0.94, 1.35)

0.19

14.6 (10.7, 18.5)

1.08 (0.72, 1.62)

0.71

 All private facilities

33.4 (30.9, 36.0)

1.02 (0.87, 1.20)

0.82

13.2 (11.4, 15.0)

0.97 (0.69, 1.38)

0.88

 Mixed/Other

36.5 (33.1, 40.0)

1.11 (0.94, 1.33)

0.22

14.4 (11.8, 17.1)

1.07 (0.74, 1.54)

0.72

Do teen’s providers order vaccination from states/ local health department

 All providers

36.1 (34.0, 38.3)

Reference

 

15.2 (13.5, 16.8)

Reference

 

 Some but possibly not all

29.6 (24.6, 34.6)

0.82 (0.69, 0.98)

0.02

8.0 (5.6, 10.4)

0.53 (0.39, 0.72)

<0.01

 No providers

29.5 (24.1, 35.0)

0.82 (0.68, 0.99)

0.04

10.7 (7.3, 14.1)

0.71 (0.51, 0.98)

0.04

 Don’t know

31.4 (24.5, 38.3)

0.87 (0.69, 1.09)

0.22

12.0 (8.0, 16.0)

0.79 (0.56, 1.12)

0.19

Influenza vaccinatione

 No

24.5 (22.0, 26.9)

Reference

 

7.8 (6.3, 9.3)

Reference

 

 Yes

44.9 (42.3, 47.6)

1.84 (1.64, 2.05)

<0.01

20.0 (17.9, 22.2)

2.58 (2.07, 3.20)

<0.01

TDAP vaccinationf

 No

31.4 (27.8, 35.0)

Reference

 

11.1 (8.6, 13.5)

Reference

 

 Yes

35.2 (33.1, 37.4)

1.12 (0.99, 1.27)

0.07

14.3 (12.8, 15.9)

1.30 (1.01, 1.67)

0.04

Meningitis vaccinationg

 No

9.0 (6.4, 11.6)

Reference

 

4.0 (2.1, 5.9)

Reference

 

 Yes

39.8 (37.7, 42.0)

4.43 (3.31, 5.93)

<0.01

15.4 (13.9, 16.9)

3.89 (2.39, 6.35)

<0.01

aBold indicates significance at p < 0.05, due to rounding some significant p-values are labeled 0.05

bMultivariable Poisson regression models are not based on an explicit causal structure and therefore the estimates may suffer from a “Table 2 fallacy” as described by Westreich and Greenland: The Table 2 Fallacy: Presenting and Interpreting Confounder and Modifier Coefficients. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(4):292–298

cAdjusted multivariable Poisson regressions estimate prevalence ratios by comparing one level of each variable to the reference level. Adjusted prevalence ratios are adjusted for all sociodemographic variables in the tables. Models were ran separately for females and males

dMarital status “other” category includes: never married/widowed/divorced/separated/deceased. Ethnicity/race of teens “other” category includes: Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic Other & Multiple Race

eAdolescent has taken at least one dose of seasonal influenza vaccination in the past three years

fAdolescent has taken at least one dose of TDAP only vaccination since age 10 years old and before 13 years old

gAdolescent has taken at least one dose of Meningitis vaccination

Males’ Sociodemographics and HPV initiation and completion

In Table 2, mothers with some college had lower prevalence of a son initiating (PR = 0.84, p = 0.05) and completing (PR = 0.62, p < 0.01) HPV vaccination than those with <High school education. Unmarried mothers had higher prevalence of having a son initiate HPV vaccination than married mothers (PR = 1.14, p = 0.02). Compared with Hispanic male adolescents, Non-Hispanic White male adolescents (PR = 0.68, p < 0.01) and Other ethnicity/race male adolescents (PR = 0.83, p < 0.01) had lower prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation, and those of Non-Hispanic White ethnicity/race had lower HPV vaccine completion (PR = 0.76, p = 0.02) compared to Hispanic males. While age was not associated with initiation of the HPV vaccine, those who were 15 (PR = 1.39, p = 0.04) and 17 (PR = 1.53, p < 0.01) years old had higher prevalence of HPV vaccine completion compared to 13 year olds. Male adolescents with health insurance that was not provided through employment or union had higher prevalence of initiating HPV vaccination (PR = 1.23, p < 0.01) than those with employer or union sponsored health insurance. Male adolescents with some but possibly not all providers (PR = 0.82, p = 0.02) and none of providers (PR = 0.82, p = 0.04) utilizing state/local health departments for vaccine supplies had a lower prevalence of initiating and completing (PR = 0.53, p < 0.01, PR = 0.71, p = 0.04, respectively) HPV vaccination than those who reported all providers sourced vaccine supplies from state/local health department. Additionally, male adolescents who received seasonal influenza vaccination (PR = 1.84, p < 0.01) and meningitis vaccination (PR = 4.43, p < 0.01) at recommended timeframes had higher prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation than those who did not receive these vaccines. Male adolescents had higher prevalence of vaccine completion if they had received seasonal influenza vaccination (PR = 2.58, p < 0.01) TDAP (PR = 1.30, p = 0.04), and Meningitis vaccinations (PR = 3.89, p < 0.01) at recommended intervals. Mother’s age, poverty status, and facility type for teen’s providers were not associated with HPV vaccination in multivariable analyses of male adolescents.

We performed a Pearson correlation matrix of all sociodemographic variables to assess potential collinearity of variables included in the multivariable regression models. There was no evidence of multicollinearity so all variables were maintained in the final tables.

Discussion

Sociodemographic factors like education level, marital and poverty status, and health insurance are considered social determinants of health because they influence the circumstances which determine an individual’s health and wellbeing [22]. By identifying sociodemographics that are associated with HPV vaccination, this research may inform future interventions in areas where social determinants are established (e.g., education systems, communities, healthcare organizations) to improve HPV vaccination [22]. Sociodemographic factors that were positively associated with HPV vaccination included not having employer/union sponsored health insurance, having an unmarried mother, and being of minority ethnicity/race. Other sociodemographic factors including mothers having some college education and being of non-Hispanic white ethnicity/race, were negatively associated with HPV vaccination.

Adolescents who are White, have married mothers, and who attend public facilities (girls) or state/local health departments (boys) were least likely to be vaccinated compared to their counterparts. These findings reflect previous research in that parents of White ethnicity/race and higher educated parents may be more hesitant about HPV vaccination [6, 23, 24], despite White individuals being more likely to have heard of the HPV vaccine compared to individuals of minority ethnicity [13]. Our finding of the negative association of married mothers with vaccination may, likewise, be a reflection of higher socioeconomic status and lower willingness to vaccinate. Clinical interventions in healthcare facilities that serve the public as well as state/local health departments are needed. Improving the delivery of strong HPV vaccination recommendations among clinicians who are employed in these facilities may improve parent’s willingness to vaccinate. There is an abundance of provider training resources for devising strong recommendations for HPV vaccination that could be implemented and tested in public facilities [25].

Girls with Medicaid reported significantly higher HPV vaccination completion compared to those with private insurance (19% vs. 12%) [26]. While HPV vaccination is available with no-cost sharing from most private health insurance plans, options for public financing (e.g., Medicaid, Vaccines for Children, Immunization Grant Program, and Children’s Health Insurance Program) for HPV vaccination may be more robust in comparison [27]. Moreover, differential provider recommendation may occur for those receiving services from providers who are covered under private versus public insurance plans. Reasons for differential receipt of the HPV vaccine between privately and publicly insured adolescents cannot be clearly determined without further research.

Receipt of adolescent vaccinations was positively associated with HPV vaccination. In 2013, the President’s Cancer Panel Report focused on improving HPV vaccination, and suggested three strategies to combat low vaccination coverage in the U.S. [28]. The first of these recommendations was to reduce missed clinical opportunities for HPV vaccination by coupling HPV vaccination with other adolescent immunizations [28]. Our finding of a strong association between meningitis vaccination and HPV vaccination is notable, and may be the result of bundled vaccinations and/or states requiring meningitis vaccination for school entry. Given the positive association between receipt of adolescent vaccinations and HPV vaccination, further research examining the feasibility of bundling HPV vaccination with other adolescent immunizations is needed and necessary for accelerating HPV vaccination in the U.S.

There are potential limitations to consider in the interpretation of these findings. Response bias may underrepresent individuals who declined to participate, and it is possible that nonresponders differ from participants on key sociodemographic characteristics, like income and race/ethnicity. The cross-sectional design of this data precludes our ability to assess changes in the association of sociodemographic factors over time. Furthermore, potential outcome misclassification of HPV vaccine completion may occur with cross-sectional surveys if an individual completes later doses of the HPV vaccine after the survey was conducted, but within the recommended time frame. However we performed a sensitivity analysis which indicated that all respondents who completed the HPV vaccine from our sample did so within the recommended 24 week timeframe. NIS-Teen survey weights do not resolve potential selection bias from limiting data to provider-validated records, which were unavailable for approximately 45% of the sample [19]. Although, provider validated records are generally similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics compared to the full NIS-Teen sample, with the exception of having a larger proportion of married mothers and differential poverty status distribution. Lastly, although our results show statistically significant associations of sociodemographic factors with HPV vaccination, these associations may not demonstrate clinical significance.

Conclusions

Sociodemographic factors that merit attention in the targeted design of HPV vaccination interventions within the three base levels of the SEF were evaluated. Future research may benefit from distinguishing between completion of two and three dose HPV vaccines and exploring community level geographic factors that may extend these findings due to the heterogeneity of vaccination by locale [29, 30]. Multifaceted, targeted interventions that consider sociodemographic variation are needed to improve HPV vaccination among sub-groups of adolescents in the U.S. Recent studies have shown protection from HPV infection with fewer than three doses of the HPV vaccine [31, 32], emphasizing the need to initiate HPV vaccination at a younger age. Targeted intervention efforts are needed to improve HPV vaccine receipt among boys, non-Hispanic whites, and more affluent parents.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence Interval

HPV: 

Human Papillomavirus

NIS-Teen: 

National Immunization Survey-Teen

PR: 

Prevalence Ratio

SEF: 

Social Ecological Framework

TDAP: 

Tetanus Diphtheria and Pertussis

US: 

United States

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Ken Boucher, PhD at the Huntsman Cancer Institute for his helpful feedback and statistical support on this manuscript and the Jonas Center for Nursing and Veterans Healthcare for their fellowship support to Ms. Warner.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Utah College of Nursing, the Huntsman Cancer Institute Foundation, the Primary Children’s Hospital Foundation, the de Beaumont Foundation, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number 1ULTR001067, and by NIH/NCI Grant #1R03CA202566–01. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during this study are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nis/data_files_teen.htm.

Authors’ contributions

ELW was involved in the conceptualization, conduct, analysis, interpretation of results, and final writing and editing of this manuscript. QD conducted the analysis, interpretation of results, and final writing and editing of this manuscript. LMP was involved in the analysis, interpretation of results, and final writing and editing of this manuscript. KH was involved in the conceptualization, conduct, analysis, interpretation of results, and final writing and editing of this manuscript. DK was involved in the conceptualization, conduct, analysis, interpretation of results, and final writing and editing of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. Secondary analysis of publicly available data is considered exempt by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah
(2)
Study Design and Biostatistics Center, School of Medicine, University of Utah
(3)
Department of Geography, Temple University
(4)
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Cancer Prevention and Control Program
(5)
College of Nursing, University of Utah
(6)
Biostatistics Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute

References

  1. Healthy People 2020 Topics & Objectives. 2014 05/23/2014]; Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases/objectives.
  2. Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescent girls, 2007–2012, and postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring, 2006–2013 - United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013. 62(29): p. 591–5.Google Scholar
  3. Stokley S, et al. Compliance with recommendations and opportunities for vaccination at ages 11 to 12 years: evaluation of the 2009 national immunization survey-teen. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(9):813–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer NT, Fazekas KI. Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: a theory-informed, systematic review. Prev Med. 2007;45(2–3):107–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Holman DM, et al. Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccination among US adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(1):76–82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarczyk RA, et al. Health disparities in human papillomavirus vaccine coverage: trends analysis from the National Immunization Survey-Teen, 2008-2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(2):238–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kepka D, et al. Factors associated with early adoption of the HPV vaccine in US male adolescents include Hispanic ethnicity and receipt of other vaccines. Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:98–102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Lai D, et al. Factors associated with increased HPV vaccine use in rural-frontier U.S. states. Public Health Nurs. 2016;33(4):283–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Reiter PL, et al. Early adoption of the human papillomavirus vaccine among Hispanic adolescent males in the United States. Cancer. 2014;120(20):3200–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Kepka D, et al. High school females and those with other vaccinations most likely to complete the human papillomavirus vaccine. Prev Med Rep. 2015;2:79–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Zimet GD. Improving adolescent health: focus on HPV vaccine acceptance. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(6 Suppl):S17–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Adjei Boakye E, et al. Approaching a decade since HPV vaccine licensure: racial and gender disparities in knowledge and awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017:0.Google Scholar
  13. Reimer RA, et al. Ethnic and gender differences in HPV knowledge, awareness, and vaccine acceptability among white and Hispanic men and women. J Community Health. 2014;39(2):274–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zimet GD, Rosenthal SL. HPV vaccine and males: issues and challenges. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117(2 Suppl):S26–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Elam-Evans L, et al. National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years — United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(29):625–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Recommendations on the Use of Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Males — Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011. 60(50): p. 1705–1708.Google Scholar
  17. Markowitz, L., et al., Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007. 56(RR02): p. 1–24.Google Scholar
  18. Jain N, et al. Determining accurate vaccination coverage rates for adolescents: the National Immunization Survey-Teen 2006. Public Health Rep. 2009;124(5):642–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. National Immunization Survey-Teen: A User's Guide for the 2013 Public-Use Data File. 2014, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  20. About the National Immunization Surveys. 2014 01/11/2015]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/nis/about.html.
  21. The Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention. 2017 10/10/2017]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html.
  22. Social Determinants of Health. 2017 10/10/2017]; Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health.
  23. Dorell C, et al. Delay and refusal of human papillomavirus vaccine for girls, national immunization survey-teen, 2010. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(3):261–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohammed KA, et al. Factors associated with parents’ intent to vaccinate adolescents for human papillomavirus: findings from the 2014 National Immunization Survey–Teen. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14Google Scholar
  25. Immunization Education & Training: You Are the Key to HPV Cancer Prevention. 2016 10/10/2017]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/ed/hpv/index.html.
  26. Ng J, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among female adolescents in managed care plans — United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(42):1185–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Foundation, K.F. The HPV Vaccine: Access and Use in the U.S. 2013 07/15/2013]; Available from: http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-hpv-vaccine-access-and-use-in/.
  28. Accelerating HPV. Vaccine uptake: urgency for action to prevent cancer. A report to the president of the United States from the President’s cancer panel. 2014. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute. Google Scholar
  29. Henry KA, et al. Geographic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination initiation among adolescent girls in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25(2):309–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Henry KA, et al. Area-based socioeconomic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among teen boys in the United States. BMC Public Health. 2017;18(1):19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper, May 2017. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2017. 92(19): p. 241–68.Google Scholar
  32. Mishra GA, Pimple SA, Shastri SS. HPV vaccine: one, two, or three doses for cervical cancer prevention? Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2015;36(4):201–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement