4.5 Review

A systematic review of measures used in studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine acceptability

期刊

VACCINE
卷 28, 期 24, 页码 4027-4037

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.03.063

关键词

Human papillomavirus; Vaccine; Measures; Methods; Systematic review

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  2. National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cancer Prevention and Control Research Networks (CPCRN) at Emory University School of Public Health [1-U48-DP00043]
  3. Harvard School of Public Health/Boston School of Public Health [1-U48-DP000064]
  4. Morehouse School of Medicine, Prevention Research Center [1-U48-DP000056]
  5. University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Health [1-U48-DP000059]
  6. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention [1-U48-DP000056]
  7. University of Texas School of Public Health [1-U48-DP-000057]
  8. University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center [1-U48-DP000050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The recent proliferation of studies describing factors associated with HPV vaccine acceptability could inform health care providers in improving vaccine coverage and support future research. This review examined measures of HPV and HPV-vaccine knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and acceptability, described psychometric characteristics, and provided recommendations about their use. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and ERIC through May 2008 for English language reports of quantitative data from parents, young adults or adolescents yielded 79 studies. Results: The majority of studies were cross-sectional surveys (87%), self-administered (67%), conducted before prophylactic vaccines were publicly available (67%) and utilized convenience samples (65%). Most measured knowledge (80%), general attitudes about HPV vaccination (40%), and willingness to vaccinate one's daughter (26%). Two-thirds did not report reliability or validity of measures. The majority did not specify a theoretical framework. Conclusions: Use of a theoretical framework, consistent labeling of constructs, more rigorous validation of measures, and testing of measures in more diverse samples are needed to yield measurement instruments that will produce findings to guide practitioners in developing successful community and clinical interventions. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据