Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36438257›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

A study of parental decision-making over the vaccination of girls, based on the protection motivation theory and the elaboration likelihood model.

Qi Wang, Fangzhou Zhou, Wen Zhang, Chenjin Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Qi WangSchool of Industrial Design, Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan, China.
Fangzhou ZhouInstitute of Communication Studies, Communication University of China, Beijing, China.
Wen ZhangSchool of Journalism and Culture Communication, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China.
Chenjin TangSchool of Journalism and Culture Communication, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study proposed a new theoretical framework that combines the protection motivation theory and the elaboration likelihood model to examine how health information processing patterns influence parents' vaccination decision-making on behalf of their daughters. Based on survey data from 359 parents of girls aged 9-15, we tested the theoretical model by using structural equation model. The results showed that the central route, represented by information quality, affected the parents' perceptions of HPV severity and susceptibility; the peripheral route, represented by source credibility, influenced their perceptions of HPV severity, HPV susceptibility, vaccine response efficacy, and secondary risks. Also, Chinese parents' perceptions of HPV vaccines, not perceptions of HPV, affected their intention to vaccinate their daughters. The study suggests in addition to improving the quality of health information, the peripheral route, such as the release of vaccination photos, public immunization evaluations, and case narratives, should also be used to change parents' perceptions. Besides, reducing the traditional stigmatization of female sexuality and improving parents' understanding of the new generation's sexual attitudes will increase parents' intention to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV.

Indexed as

MotivationPapillomavirus InfectionsFemaleHumansLikelihood FunctionsParentsVaccinationelaboration likelihood model (ELM)HPV vaccineparental decision-makingprotection motivation theory (PMT)secondary risks

Identifiers

PMID36438257
PMCPMC9691002

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.