Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32978614›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2022

Impact of new consent procedures on uptake of the schools-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme.

Harriet Fisher, Matthew Hickman, Joanne Ferrie, Karen Evans, Michael Bell, Julie Yates, Marion Roderick, Rosy Reynolds, John MacLeod, Suzanne Audrey

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Inequalities in adolescent HPV, Td/IPV and MenACWY vaccination coverage by socio-economic status: an ecological study, England, 2017 to 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Harriet FisherPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Matthew HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Joanne FerrieScreening and Immunisations South West, Public Health England, Tauton, UK.
Karen EvansSirona Care & Health, Bristol and South Gloucestershire, Bristol, UK.
Michael BellBristol Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR CLAHRC West, Bristol, UK.
Julie YatesScreening and Immunisations South West, Public Health England, Tauton, UK.
Marion RoderickDepartment of Paediatric Immunology & Infectious Disease, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK.
Rosy ReynoldsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
John MacLeodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Suzanne AudreyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0416-20013Medical Research Council MR/T027150/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLocal policy change initiating new consent procedures was introduced during 2017-2018 for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme year in two local authorities in the south-west of England. This study aims to assess impact on uptake and inequalities.

methodsPublicly available aggregate and individual-level routine data were retrieved for the programme years 2015-2016 to 2018-2019. Statistical analyses were undertaken to show: (i) change in uptake in intervention local authorities in comparison to matched local authorities and (ii) change in uptake overall, and by local authority, school type, ethnicity and deprivation.

resultsAggregate data showed uptake in Local Authority One increased from 76.3% to 82.5% in the post-intervention period (risk difference: 6.2% P = 0.17), with a difference-in-differences effect of 11.5% (P = 0.03). There was no evidence for a difference-in-differences effect in Local Authority Two (P = 0.76). Individual-level data showed overall uptake increased post-intervention (risk difference: +1.1%, P = 0.05), and for young women attending school in Local Authority One (risk difference: 2.3%, P < 0.01). No strong evidence for change by school category, ethnic group and deprivation was found.

conclusionImplementation of new consent procedures can improve and overcome trends for decreasing uptake among matched local authorities. However, no evidence for reduction in inequalities was found. IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION: The new consent procedures increased uptake in one of the intervention sites and appeared to overcome trends for decreasing uptake in matched sites. There are issues in relation to the quality of data which require addressing.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansInformed ConsentPapillomaviridaeSchoolsVaccinationPapillomavirus VaccinesadolescentsconsentHPV vaccination programmepolicyquasi experimental study design

Identifiers

PMID32978614
PMCPMC8904199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.