ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Improving Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination Rates at an Urban Pediatric Primary Care Center.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Human papillomavirus vaccination at age 9 or 10 years to increase coverage - a narrative review of the literature, United States 2014-2024.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Re-establishing control limits in statistical process control analyses: the stable shift algorithm.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Health Equity and Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Interventions for Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Review
- Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Quality Improvement Partnership to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Rates: Start at Age 9 Campaign.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite compelling evidence regarding its safety and efficacy, human papilloma virus vaccination rates remain low nationally with high rates of missed vaccination opportunities. Provider recommendation is the most important factor in determining vaccine approval by families; yet, studies show that providers are hesitant to strongly recommend vaccination, especially at younger ages. We hypothesized that educational and quality improvement interventions targeting our clinical team would decrease rates of missed opportunities to vaccinate patients aged 11-13 years and improve vaccination rates among patients aged 9-10 years old.
methodsThis quality improvement project took place at an urban, academic pediatric primary care center in north Philadelphia, which serves as the medical home for over 22,000 patients. A multidisciplinary team performed a series of planned sequential interventions to improve human papilloma virus vaccination rates. The electronic health records of children aged 9-13 who presented to our center from September 2014 through December 2015 were queried. Statistical process control charts and established rules for detecting special cause variation were applied.
resultsRates of missed opportunities to vaccinate 11- to 13-year-old patients decreased from 63% to 18% during the intervention period. Rates of immunization of 9- to 10-year-old patients increased from 56% to 84% during the intervention period.
conclusionThis low-cost, multifaceted, interdisciplinary quality improvement project resulted in a decrease in missed opportunities to vaccinate among children aged 11-13 years old and improved the vaccination rates of 9-10 year olds. Ongoing interventions are needed to sustain these efforts and to ensure timely vaccine series completion.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.