ArticleBMC international health and human rights2019
A cross-sectional survey of parental attitudes towards Human papillomavirus vaccination exclusion categories in Brazil.
Article in BMC international health and human rights, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Parental Knowledge and Beliefs on HPV Vaccine Hesitancy in Kenya-Findings and Implications.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Knowledge and Attitude Towards Human Papillomavirus Vaccine and Associated Factors Among Mothers Who Have Eligible Daughters in Debre Markos Town, Northwest Ethiopia.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 1988, Brazil established a constitutional right to health and universal access to health care for all Brazilians through the creation of the Unified Health System (SUS). As part of its efforts to fulfill this right, the quadrivalent Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced into the national immunization program in 2014. The non-discriminatory provision of healthcare goods, facilities, and services is a fundamental part of the right to health. Yet HPV vaccination was limited to females aged 9-13, despite the universal nature of SUS and scientific support for the vaccination of males and older females. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe parental attitudes regarding age- and gender-based HPV vaccination exclusions, as well as parental knowledge of HPV and the HPV vaccine.
methodsData were gathered from parents with children aged 9-17 in a health post located in the municipality of Mauá (São Paulo, Brazil) through interviewer-administered questionnaires. We analyzed attitudes regarding HPV vaccination and its eligibility guidelines by comparing parents of HPV vaccine eligible and ineligible children.
resultsIn this low-income population, the majority of the 219 parents surveyed supported the inclusion of males and females over 13 into the HPV vaccination program; support for the non-discriminatory provision of the HPV vaccine was high among parents - especially if financially accessible. Additionally, there were high levels of knowledge and positive parental attitudes regarding HPV vaccination safety and efficacy among both parent groups suggesting information accessibility - a key component of the right to health and informed decision-making.
conclusionsSupport for the expansion of HPV vaccination for excluded populations exists, and is not based on current eligibility, or differential knowledge and attitudes about the vaccine. Moving forward, careful consideration of gender- based eligibility for vaccination, informed decision-making, and the importance of community participation in health policy development and implementation may be gleaned from the case of Brazil and beyond.
Indexed as
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.