↓ Skip to main content

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Perspectives on HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents in the Netherlands: a Q-methodological study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Perspectives on HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents in the Netherlands: a Q-methodological study
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4879-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathalie J. S. Patty, Hanna Maria van Dijk, Iris Wallenburg, Roland Bal, Theo J. M. Helmerhorst, Job van Exel, Jane Murray Cramm

Abstract

Despite the introduction of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in national immunization programs (NIPs), vaccination rates in most countries remain relatively low. An understanding of the reasons underlying decisions about whether to vaccinate is essential in order to promote wider spread of HPV vaccination. This is particularly important in relation to policies seeking to address shortfalls in current HPV campaigns. The aim of this study was to explore prevailing perspectives concerning HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents, and so to identify potential determinants of HPV vaccination decisions in these groups. Perspectives were explored using Q-methodology. Forty-seven girls, 39 boys, and 107 parents in the Netherlands were asked to rank a comprehensive set of 35 statements, assembled based on the health belief model (HBM), according to their agreement with them. By-person factor analysis was used to identify common patterns in these rankings, which were interpreted as perspectives on HPV vaccination. These perspectives were further interpreted and described using data collected with interviews and open-ended questions. The analysis revealed four perspectives: "prevention is better than cure," "fear of unknown side effects," "lack of information and awareness," and "my body, my choice." The first two perspectives and corresponding determinants of HPV vaccination decisions were coherent and distinct; the third and fourth perspectives were more ambiguous and, to some extent, incoherent, involving doubt and lack of awareness and information (perspective 3), and overconfidence (perspective 4). Given the aim of publically funded vaccination programs to minimize the spread of HPV infection and HPV-related disease and the concerns about current uptake levels, our results indicate that focus should be placed on increasing awareness and knowledge, in particular among those in a modifiable phase.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Psychology 14 10%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 52 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 14 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,943,560
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,140
of 15,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,514
of 332,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#43
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 332,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.