ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
A comprehensive review of HPV vaccination policies in the United States.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-assisted SERS for rapid and accurate early screening of cervical cancer.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Willingness to receive cross-border human papillomavirus vaccination among Chinese male university students: a cross-sectional study with statistical indirect-association analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the leading cause of cervical cancer in the United States (U.S.), yet HPV vaccination coverage remains suboptimal and uneven across states. Policy approaches to improve HPV vaccine uptake vary widely across states in terms of health financing, provider authority, school requirements, and consent requirements. Methods: A comprehensive review of state-level HPV vaccination policies was conducted. Information was identified through peer-reviewed literature (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar) and authoritative policy and legislative sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, National Academy for State Health Policy, and state statutes. Policies were categorized into macro-level health policies (Medicaid expansion, pharmacy and pharmacist authority, and state vaccine purchase programs) and HPV-specific policies (school-entry requirements, classroom sex education mandates, parental education mandates, minor consent laws, and exemption frameworks). Evidence on policy implementation and effectiveness was narratively synthesized. Results: Substantial heterogeneity in HPV vaccination policy adoption and implementation across U.S. states was documented. Medicaid expansion, pharmacist vaccination authority, and well-enforced school-entry requirements were consistently associated with higher HPV vaccine initiation or completion, while policies with permissive exemptions or weak enforcement demonstrated limited impact. Financing mechanisms such as universal and selective vaccine purchase programs reduced cost barriers but showed inconsistent effects on uptake when implemented in isolation. Evidence suggests that no single policy is sufficient; multi-level, coordinated policy environments yield the greatest improvements in vaccination coverage. Conclusion: HPV vaccination uptake in the U.S. is shaped by complex and interacting policy mechanisms rather than individual interventions. Integrated policy approaches that combine financing, access expansion, school-based strategies, provider engagement, and enforcement structures are most likely to achieve sustained and equitable improvements in HPV vaccine uptake.
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.