ArticleThe American journal of managed care2025
Prevalence and inclusiveness of pay-for-performance incentives for HPV vaccination.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe examine the prevalence of pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives to promote human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and eligibility for P4P incentives as reported by clinical staff. STUDY
designA 2022 survey of primary care clinical staff in the US who provided HPV vaccination to children aged 9 to 12 years (N = 2527; response rate, 57%).
methodsThe primary outcome was a mutually exclusive categorical variable for the type of P4P quality metrics used in the past year: HPV vaccination, other pediatric vaccinations, other quality metrics, or none. The secondary outcome was an indicator variable for whether the respondent was, or would be, eligible for P4P incentives. We adjusted logistic models for clinical staff and clinic characteristics.
resultsOnly 8% (n = 193) of respondents reported use of P4P incentives for HPV vaccination in their clinic. Clinics that were part of a health care system were more likely to have used P4P incentives for HPV vaccination (relative risk ratio [RRR] for respondents in systems of ≥ 5 clinics vs respondents not in systems, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.38-3.08), and clinics that saw more children were more likely to have used P4P incentives for HPV vaccination (RRR for respondents in clinics seeing ≥ 50 children vs clinics seeing 0-9 children per week, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.44-4.82). Physicians were more than twice as likely as other clinical staff to be eligible for P4P incentives (eg: OR for physician assistant, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59).
conclusionsOpportunities exist to extend P4P incentives in primary care to promote 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.