ArticleBMJ open2024
Factors associated with HPV vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in Africa: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide. HPV vaccination is an important tool to prevent and control HPV infection and its complications. Despite carrying the severe burden of disease, HPV vaccine coverage in Africa remains low. The aim of the current review is to evaluate the factors associated with HPV vaccination acceptance among adolescent men and women, young men and women, parents/caregivers, men who have sex with men, healthcare workers and programme managers in Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include peer-reviewed quantitative studies. We will search PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with no language restriction, to identify eligible studies. Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the search output in Covidence to select potentially eligible studies. The same two reviewers will independently screen the full-text of all identified potentially eligible articles to identify studies meeting inclusion criteria. Two review authors will independently extract data from eligible studies using a predefined data extraction form. Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias in each included study, using the Effective Public Health Practice Project 'Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies'. We will assess the quality of evidence using the method for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study because we will use already published data. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023475810.
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.