4.5 Article

Resilience of HPV vaccine uptake in Denmark: Decline and recovery

期刊

VACCINE
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1842-1848

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.12.019

关键词

HPV vaccination; Resilience; Vaccine hesitancy; Safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Immunization programs' resilience to shocks is central to their success, but little empirical evidence documents resilience in action. We sought to characterize the decline of HPV vaccination in Denmark after negative media coverage and recovery during a national information campaign. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of all girls born in Denmark from 1997 to 2006 (N = 328,779), aged 12-15. The outcome measure was HPV vaccine uptake (first dose), as reported to the Danish national health registry from 2009 to 2019, when HPV vaccine was freely available to girls in primary care clinics in Denmark. Events that created 4 natural time periods for study were HPV vaccine reaching the uptake of other vaccines in the national program (2009), some negative media coverage of HPV vaccination (2013), extensive negative media coverage (2015), and a national information campaign about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness (2017-2019). Results: In the period with some negative media coverage, HPV vaccine uptake fell to 83.6% (95% CI:78.0%-89.7%) of baseline uptake. In the period with extensive negative media coverage, uptake fell even further to 49.6% (95% CI:44.5%-55.2%) of baseline uptake. After the information campaign, HPV vaccine uptake recovered to its baseline level (109.2%, 95% CI:90.1%-132.4%) due in part to catch-up doses. Despite the recovery, an estimated 26,000 fewer girls initiated the vaccine than if uptake had not declined. Conclusions: The experience in Denmark offers one of the first opportunities to document how a nation grappled with negative media coverage of HPV vaccination and the steadying impact of action by national authorities. (C) 2019 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