Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21852642›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2011

Another look at the human papillomavirus vaccine experience in Canada.

Catherine L Mah, Raisa B Deber, Astrid Guttmann, Allison McGeer, Murray Krahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Catherine L MahDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. catherine.mah@utoronto.ca
Raisa B Deber
Astrid Guttmann
Allison McGeer
Murray Krahn

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy debates about immunization frequently focus on classic trade-offs between individual versus collective well-being. Publicly funded immunization programs are usually justified on the basis of widespread public benefit with minimal individual risk. We discuss the example of the policy process surrounding the adoption of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in Canada to consider whether public good arguments continue to dominate immunization policymaking. Specifically, we show how a range of stakeholders framed HPV vaccination as a personal-rather than a public-matter, despite the absence of a controversy over mandatory immunization as was the case in the United States. Our findings suggest an erosion of the persuasiveness of public good arguments around collective immunization programs in the policy discourse.

Indexed as

CanadaCancer VaccinesHealth PolicyHumansImmunization ProgramsMandatory ProgramsPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPolicy MakingPoliticsPublic HealthUnited StatesWomen's HealthCancer VaccinesPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID21852642
PMCPMC3222351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.