6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers, facilitators, and potential strategies for increasing HPV vaccination: A statewide assessment to inform action

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The objective was to investigate how state level strategies in South Carolina could maximize HPV vaccine uptake.

          Design

          An environmental scan identified barriers, facilitators, and strategies for improving HPV vaccination in South Carolina. Interviews were conducted with state leaders from relevant organizations such as public health agencies, medical associations, K-12 schools, universities, insurers, and cancer advocacy organizations. A thematic content analysis design was used. Digital interview files were transcribed, a data dictionary was created and data were coded using the data dictionary.

          Results

          Thirty four interviews were conducted with state leaders. Barriers to HPV vaccination included lack of HPV awareness, lack of provider recommendation, HPV vaccine concerns, lack of access and practice-level barriers. Facilitators included momentum for improving HPV vaccination, school-entry Tdap requirement, pharmacy-based HPV vaccination, state immunization registry, HEDIS measures and HPV vaccine funding. Strategies for improving HPV vaccination fell into three categories: 1) addressing lack of awareness about the importance of HPV vaccination among the public and providers; 2) advocating for policy changes around HPV vaccine coverage, vaccine education, and pharmacy-based vaccination; and 3) coordination of efforts.

          Discussion

          A statewide environmental scan generated a blueprint for action to be used to improve HPV vaccination in the state.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Health care provider recommendation, human papillomavirus vaccination, and race/ethnicity in the US National Immunization Survey.

          Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, yet HPV vaccination rates remain relatively low. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of health care provider recommendations for HPV vaccination and the association between recommendation and vaccination. We used the 2009 National Immunization Survey-Teen, a nationally representative cross-section of female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, to assess provider-verified HPV vaccination (≥ 1 dose) and participant-reported health care provider recommendation for the HPV vaccine. More than half (56.9%) of female adolescents received a recommendation for the HPV vaccine, and adolescents with a recommendation were almost 5 times as likely to receive a vaccine (odds ratio = 4.81; 95% confidence interval = 4.01, 5.77) as those without a recommendation. Racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to receive a recommendation, but the association between recommendation and vaccination appeared strong for all racial/ethnic groups. Provider recommendations were strongly associated with HPV vaccination. Racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites were equally likely to obtain an HPV vaccine after receiving a recommendation. Vaccine education efforts should target health care providers to increase recommendations, particularly among racial/ethnic minority populations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Using thematic analysis in psychology

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Disparities in adolescent health and health care: does socioeconomic status matter?

              National household survey. We analyzed data on 12,434 adolescents (10 through 18 years old) included in the 1999 and 2000 editions of the National Health Interview Survey. We assessed the presence of income gradients using four income groups. Outcome variables included health status, health insurance coverage, access to and satisfaction with care, utilization, and unmet health needs. After adjustment for confounding variables using multivariate analysis, statistically significant disparities were found between poor adolescents and their counterparts in middle- and higher-income families for three of four health status measures, six of eight measures of access to and satisfaction with care, and for six of nine indicators of access to and use of medical care, dental care, and mental health care. Our analyses indicate adolescents in low-income families remain at a disadvantage despite expansions of the Medicaid program and the comparatively new State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Additional efforts are needed to ensure eligible adolescents are enrolled in these programs. Nonfinancial barriers to care must also be addressed to reduce inequities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Papillomavirus Res
                Papillomavirus Res
                Papillomavirus Research
                Elsevier
                2405-8521
                07 December 2017
                June 2018
                07 December 2017
                : 5
                : 21-31
                Affiliations
                [a ]Medical University of South Carolina, Hollings Cancer Center, Charleston, SC, United States
                [b ]Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, Charleston, SC, United States
                [c ]Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Charleston, SC, United States
                [d ]Medical University of South Carolina, College of Medicine, Charleston, SC, United States
                [e ]Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Public Health Sciences, United States
                [f ]University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, SC, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, Charleston, SC 29425, United States.Medical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing99 Jonathan Lucas StreetCharlestonSC29425United States cartmelk@ 123456musc.edu
                Article
                S2405-8521(17)30047-2
                10.1016/j.pvr.2017.11.003
                5886972
                29248818
                7276d2a8-1c35-41f5-b71a-9db17167ed95
                © 2017 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 20 July 2017
                : 8 November 2017
                : 30 November 2017
                Categories
                Article

                hpv,hpv vaccines,cervical cancer,prevention,health systems,barriers,facilitators,strategies,south carolina

                Comments

                Comment on this article