↓ Skip to main content

Girls’ explanations for being unvaccinated or under vaccinated against human papillomavirus: a content analysis of survey responses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Girls’ explanations for being unvaccinated or under vaccinated against human papillomavirus: a content analysis of survey responses
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2657-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice S. Forster, Jo Waller, Harriet L. Bowyer, Laura A. V. Marlow

Abstract

In England HPV vaccination is offered to all girls age 12-13 years, free-at-the-point-of-receipt, mostly in schools. Coverage is good, but around 20 % of girls remain unvaccinated. This research sought to explore reasons for being un-/under vaccinated. An ethnically diverse sample of girls aged 15-16 years attending one of twelve London schools completed a survey three years after being offered HPV vaccination. Girls reported their HPV vaccine status and those who were unvaccinated (had not received any doses of the vaccine) or under vaccinated (had not completed the recommended 3-dose course) recorded reasons for their un-/under vaccinated status. Reasons were reported using free-text and content analysis was used to analyse responses. Around 74 % of un-/under vaccinated girls provided a reason for their vaccination status (n = 259). Among unvaccinated girls, the most common reasons related to lack of perceived need for vaccination, concerns about safety and lack of parental consent. Girls who were under vaccinated gave practical reasons, including the need for more information (e.g. not knowing that multiple doses were needed), administrative issues (e.g. school absence), health and procedural concerns (e.g. fear of needles). Descriptively, there were few differences in the reasons given between girls from different ethnic backgrounds. Girls from Black and Asian backgrounds more commonly thought that the vaccine was not needed. Lack of parental consent without providing further explanation was most often cited by girls from Black backgrounds. Safety concerns and lack of perceived need should be addressed to encourage informed uptake of HPV vaccination. Immunisation programme coordinators may be able to increase series completion by tackling practical problems facing under vaccinated girls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 20%
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,566,115
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,015
of 14,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,844
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#79
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,878 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 66% 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 390,618 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 68% of its contemporaries.