| Title |
A longitudinal study on determinants of HPV vaccination uptake in parents/guardians from different ethnic backgrounds in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4091-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catharina J. Alberts, Maarten F. Schim van der Loeff, Yvonne Hazeveld, Hester E. de Melker, Marcel F. van der Wal, Astrid Nielen, Fatima El Fakiri, Maria Prins, Theo G. W. M. Paulussen |
| Abstract |
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage in the Netherlands is low (~60%) compared to other childhood vaccinations (>90%), and even lower among ethnic minorities. The aim of this study was to explore the possible impact of ethnicity on the determinants of both HPV vaccination intention and HPV vaccination uptake among parents/guardians having a daughter that is invited for the HPV vaccination. In February 2014, parents/guardians living in Amsterdam were invited to complete a questionnaire about social-psychological determinants of their decision making process regarding the HPV vaccination of their daughter and socio-demographic characteristics. This questionnaire was sent approximately one month before the daughter was scheduled to receive her first HPV vaccine dose. Their daughters' HPV vaccination status was retrieved from the national vaccination database. We distinguished four ethnic groups: Dutch (NL), Surinamese, Netherlands Antillean, and Aruban (SNA), Middle-Eastern and North-African (MENA), and Other. To assess the impact of determinants on both intention and uptake, linear and logistic regression analyses were used respectively. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equation. In total 1,309 parents/guardians participated (33% participation rate). In all groups we found the mothers' intention to be the strongest predictor of their daughters' HPV vaccination uptake. Explained variance of uptake was highest in the NL-group (pseudo-R(2):0.56) and lower in the other ethnic groups (pseudo-R(2) varied between 0.23 and 0.29). The lower explained variance can be attributed to the relative large proportion of participants with a positive intention that finally did not go for vaccination in the SNA-group (11%) and MENA-group (30%). Explained variance (R(2)) of intention varied between 0.66 and 0.77 across ethnic groups, and was best explained by the proximal social-psychological determinants. The strength of association of these determinants with both intention and uptake were largely similar across ethnic groups. We conclude that the same determinants should be targeted in the different ethnic groups, although the mode of delivery of the intervention needs to be tailored to the different cultural backgrounds. Further research is needed to explain the observed discrepancy between intention and uptake, especially among parents/guardians in the non-Dutch groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 19% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 35 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 42 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,471,851
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,825
of 14,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,809
of 310,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#98
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.