ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2022
A survey of healthcare workers' recommendations about human papillomavirus vaccination.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare worker practices for HPV vaccine recommendation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Human Papillomavirus vaccine knowledge and recommendation practice among primary care providers, Almaty, Kazakhstan - 2023.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- HPV vaccination in Africa in the COVID-19 era: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers' knowledge, training, and recommendation practices.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Public perception of the resumption of HPV vaccine recommendation in Japan: Twitter content analysis.Health promotion international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is safe and effective for preventing HPV-related diseases. However, HPV vaccination rates in Japan are low because the "Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare" had stopped recommending vaccination. We assessed healthcare workers' (HCWs) current recommendations regarding the HPV vaccine and how the provision of information about HPV vaccination affected their recommendations. Materials and Methods: A survey was conducted among nurses and physicians in Nara prefecture from March 2021 to July 2021. The questionnaire asked about their understanding, recommendations, and opinions regarding HPV vaccination. Before answering the last two questions (optional), the HCWs read evidence-based information quantifying the risks and benefits of HPV vaccination. Results: A total of 441 HCWs completed the questionnaire. Only 19% of HCWs always recommended HPV vaccination for girls aged 12-16 years. The evidence-based information significantly improved the percentage of HCWs who would "always recommend" vaccination. Conclusion: This study showed that the proportion of HCWs who recommend HPV vaccination to adolescent girls remains low in Japan. However, we found that evidence-based information describing the causal relationship between adverse events and vaccination, quantifying the risks and benefits, noting the importance of HCW communications with families, and reporting the recommendations of national societies, might increase HCWs' recommendations for HPV vaccination.
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.