Jennifer L Moss1, Paul L Reiter, Noel T Brewer. 1. From the *Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and †College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that states with higher rates of cancers associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) would have lower HPV vaccine coverage. METHODS: We gathered state-level data on HPV-related cancer rates and HPV vaccine initiation coverage for girls and boys, separately, and HPV vaccine follow-through (i.e., receipt of 3 doses among those initiating the series) for girls only. In addition, we gathered state-level data on demographic composition and contact with the health care system. We calculated Pearson correlations for these ecological relationships. RESULTS: Human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among girls was lower in states with higher levels of cervical cancer incidence and mortality (r = -0.29 and -0.46, respectively). In addition, vaccine follow-through among girls was lower in states with higher levels of cervical cancer mortality (r = -0.30). Other cancer rates were associated with HPV vaccine initiation and follow-through among girls, but not among boys. Human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among girls was lower in states with higher proportions of non-Hispanic black residents and lower proportions of higher-income residents. Human papillomavirus vaccine follow-through was higher in states with greater levels of adolescents' contact with the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus vaccine coverage for girls was lower in states with higher HPV-related cancer rates. Public health efforts should concentrate on geographic areas with higher cancer rates. Strengthening adolescent preventive health care use may be particularly important to increase vaccine follow-through. Cost-effectiveness analyses may overestimate the benefits of current vaccination coverage and underestimate the benefits of increasing coverage.
BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that states with higher rates of cancers associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) would have lower HPV vaccine coverage. METHODS: We gathered state-level data on HPV-related cancer rates and HPV vaccine initiation coverage for girls and boys, separately, and HPV vaccine follow-through (i.e., receipt of 3 doses among those initiating the series) for girls only. In addition, we gathered state-level data on demographic composition and contact with the health care system. We calculated Pearson correlations for these ecological relationships. RESULTS: Human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among girls was lower in states with higher levels of cervical cancer incidence and mortality (r = -0.29 and -0.46, respectively). In addition, vaccine follow-through among girls was lower in states with higher levels of cervical cancer mortality (r = -0.30). Other cancer rates were associated with HPV vaccine initiation and follow-through among girls, but not among boys. Human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among girls was lower in states with higher proportions of non-Hispanic black residents and lower proportions of higher-income residents. Human papillomavirus vaccine follow-through was higher in states with greater levels of adolescents' contact with the health care system. CONCLUSIONS:Human papillomavirus vaccine coverage for girls was lower in states with higher HPV-related cancer rates. Public health efforts should concentrate on geographic areas with higher cancer rates. Strengthening adolescent preventive health care use may be particularly important to increase vaccine follow-through. Cost-effectiveness analyses may overestimate the benefits of current vaccination coverage and underestimate the benefits of increasing coverage.
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Cynthia M Rand; Laura P Shone; Christina Albertin; Peggy Auinger; Jonathan D Klein; Peter G Szilagyi Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2007-03
Authors: Meg Watson; Mona Saraiya; Vicki Benard; Steven S Coughlin; Lisa Flowers; Vilma Cokkinides; Molly Schwenn; Youjie Huang; Anna Giuliano Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sue J Goldie; Michele Kohli; Daniel Grima; Milton C Weinstein; Thomas C Wright; F Xavier Bosch; Eduardo Franco Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathy L MacLaughlin; Robert M Jacobson; Jennifer L St Sauver; Debra J Jacobson; Chun Fan; Chung-Il Wi; Lila J Finney Rutten Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Julie S Townsend; C Brooke Steele; Nikki Hayes; Achal Bhatt; Angela R Moore Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Alexandra Gamber; Joseph Nowatzke; Chin-I Cheng; Allison Hazy; Jacob Kurdys; Emmanuel-Luis Avelino; Neli Ragina Journal: J Community Health Date: 2019-06
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Noel T Brewer; Justin G Trogdon; Morris Weinberger; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Thomas W Kensler; Avrum Spira; Judy E Garber; Eva Szabo; J Jack Lee; Zigang Dong; Andrew J Dannenberg; William N Hait; Elizabeth Blackburn; Nancy E Davidson; Margaret Foti; Scott M Lippman Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-01