| Literature DB >> 27663658 |
Asami Yagi1, Yutaka Ueda2,3, Tomomi Egawa-Takata1,4, Yusuke Tanaka1,4, Akiko Morimoto1,4, Yoshito Terai4,5, Masahide Ohmichi4,5, Tomoyuki Ichimura4,6, Toshiyuki Sumi4,6, Hiromi Murata4,7, Hidetaka Okada4,7, Hidekatsu Nakai4,8, Masaki Mandai4,8, Kiyoshi Yoshino1,4, Tadashi Kimura1,4, Junko Saito4,9, Risa Kudoh10, Masayuki Sekine10, Takayuki Enomoto4,10, Kei Hirai11, Yorihiko Horikoshi4, Tetsu Takagi4, Kentaro Shimura4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Japan, new HPV immunizations have dropped dramatically after repeated adverse media reports and a June 2013 temporary suspension of the government's recommendation for the vaccine. The aim of the present study was to develop an efficient strategy to improve HPV immunization coverage across Japan.Entities:
Keywords: Adverse events; Behavioural economics; Decision-making facility; Governmental recommendation; HPV vaccination rate; Internet survey; Stepped strategy
Year: 2016 PMID: 27663658 PMCID: PMC5035494 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3676-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Schema of the survey about mothers’ attitude toward HPV vaccine for their daughters
Fig. 2Changes in the mothers’ intention for vaccination of daughter. Shown are the responses of 2060 mothers to a question as to whether they would make their daughter get the HPV vaccine under the current situation (a), in case of restart of the govermental recommendation (b), and after presentation of the messages (c). Spots: will inoculate; Oblique lines: unsure; Black: won’t inoculate. *: The rate of the willing mothers significantly increased after recommendation restart (p < 0.001 by Fisher’s exact test). **: The rate of the willing mothers significantly increased after looking at the educational messages (p < 0.001 by Fisher’s exact test)
Decision-making facility of mothers and their attitude towards their daughters’ HPV vaccination
| Intention of inoculation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Willing | Unsure | Won’t |
| |
|
|
|
| (chi-square test) | |
| As the current situation | ||||
| Decision-making facility | ||||
| High | 160 (13 %) | 566 (46 %) | 510 (41 %) | 0.14 |
| Low | 90 (11 %) | 411 (50 %) | 323 (39 %) | |
| In the case of a restart of the governmental recommendation | ||||
| Decision-making facility | ||||
| High | 262 (21 %) | 648 (52 %) | 326 (26 %) | 0.065 |
| Low | 171 (12 %) | 470 (57 %) | 183 (22 %) | |
| After educational intervention (messages presented) | ||||
| Decision-making facility | ||||
| High | 326 (26 %) | 627 (51 %) | 283 (23 %)a | 0.012 |
| Low | 236 (29 %) | 444 (41 %) | 144 (17 %)a | |
a p < 0.05 by chi-square test combined with residual analysis
Characteristics of the internet survey responders
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 30–34 | 80 | 3.9 |
| 35–39 | 408 | 19.8 |
| 40–44 | 933 | 45.3 |
| 45–49 | 516 | 25.0 |
| 50–54 | 105 | 5.1 |
| 55–59 | 14 | 0.7 |
| Over 60 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Residence area | ||
| Hokkaido | 99 | 4.8 |
| Tohoku | 136 | 6.6 |
| Kanto | 714 | 34.7 |
| Chubu | 325 | 15.8 |
| Kinki | 429 | 20.8 |
| Chugoku | 106 | 5.1 |
| Shikoku | 51 | 2.5 |
| Kyushu | 200 | 9.7 |
| Education | ||
| Junior high-school | 55 | 2.7 |
| Senior high-school | 657 | 31.9 |
| Junior or technical college | 846 | 41.1 |
| University | 482 | 23.4 |
| Graduate school | 16 | 0.8 |
| Other | 4 | 0.2 |
Best timing for administration of HPV vaccine
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| The most appropriate inoculation time of HPV vaccination is? | ||
| Before first sexual intercourse | 1042 | 57.6 |
| Don’t know | 596 | 32.9 |
| None in particular (anytime) | 117 | 6.4 |
| Before pregnancy or delivery | 43 | 2.4 |
| Other | 12 | 0.7 |
| Total | 1810 | 100.0 |
| When will your daughter’s HPV vaccination might actually occur? | ||
| Before pregnancy or delivery | 109 | 10.5 |
| Before becoming an adult | 383 | 36.8 |
| Eighteen | 115 | 14.9 |
| Seventeen | 99 | 9.5 |
| Sixteen | 18 | 1.7 |
| Fifteen | 110 | 10.6 |
| Fourteen | 9 | 0.9 |
| Thirteen | 10 | 1.0 |
| Other | 149 | 14.3 |
| Total | 1042 | 100.0 |
What is ‘the most appropriate inoculation time for HPV vaccination’ was asked of 1810 mothers who, at the beginning of the study, were not willing to vaccinate their daughters. The timing ‘When HPV vaccination might actually occur’for their own daughters was asked of those who correctly answered “Before first sexual intercourse” to the above question
Preconditions mothers required for their daughters’ HPV vaccination
| Intention for inoculation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Willing | Unsure/Won’t | |||
| In the case of restart of the governmental recommendation | ||||
| Inoculate | Unsure | Won’t inoculate | ||
| Preconditions | ||||
| Vaccinate without any specific conditions under suspension of the recommendation (Group A-willing) | ||||
| 5/250 (2.0 %) | ― | ― | ― | |
| Vaccinate immediately after restart of the recommendation (Group A-restart) | ||||
| 47/250 (18.8 %) | 33/183 (18.0 %) | ― | ― | |
| Vaccinate after friends or acquaintances have been inoculated (Precondition 1) | ||||
| (Group B) | ||||
| 66/250 (26.4 %) | 53/183 (29.0 %) | 210/1118 (18.8 %) | 19/509 (3.7 %) | |
| Vaccinate after many girls of same age group have been inoculated (Precondition 2) | ||||
| (Group C) | ||||
| 119/250 (47.6 %) | 92/183 (50.3 %) | 709/1118 (63.4 %) | 126/509 (24.7 %) | |
| Others | ||||
| (Group D) | ||||
| 13/250 (5.2 %) | 5/183 (2.7 %) | 199/1118 (17.8 %) | 45/509 (8.8 %) | |
| Won’t inoculate | ||||
| (Group E) | ||||
| ― | ― | ― | 319/509 (62.8 %) | |
| Total | ||||
| 250 | 183 | 1118 | 509 | |
Group A: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters without preconditions, even under recommendation suspension (Group A-willing), and those who would vaccinate their daughters immediately after a recommendation restart, without other preconditions (Group A-restart)
Group B: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters only after inoculation of close friends and acquaintances
Group C: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters only after inoculation of many other girls of the same age group
Group D: Mothers who would stipulate other preconditions before they will vaccinate their daughters
Group E: Mothers who wouldn’t inoculate their daughters under any circumstances
Educational messages
| Content of the messages |
|---|
| Message 1: Loss of future fertility by not vaccinating |
| -Invasive cervical cancer in younger women has doubled, compared to 20 years ago |
| -Hysterectomy is usually needed for invasive cervical cancer, even if it is found at an early stage, and afterwards the patient can’t conceive |
| Message 2: Loss of the future benefits by postponement of vaccination |
| -Efficacy of HPV vaccine is reduced if girl not inoculated before first sexual intercourse |
| Message 3: Expectations for the vaccine (dispelling the negative image of adverse events) |
| -The Nobel Prize was awarded for discovery of HPV |
| -The vaccine has been developed through study for as long as 20 years after discovery of HPV |
| -The vaccine has been approved in about 120 countries/regions worldwide |
| Message 4: Comparison of future benefits by vaccination with near-term losses |
| -The vaccine is effective in preventing cervical cancer, with a probability of 60–70 % in the future |
| -Severe adverse events occur after vaccination in only about 0.007 % of girls |
| Message 5: Safety of vaccination (changing the focus away from serious adverse events) |
| -HPV vaccine is given safely in about 99.993 % of girls |
Message 1 was created using the theory of ‘loss avoidance’, which is one of the most representative theories in behavioral economics. By emphasizing the increase of cervical cancer incidence in younger women compared to 20 years ago, and the possibility of needing to undergo a hysterectomy for cervical cancer, Message 1 explains the magnitude of loss caused by avoiding vaccination. Conservative mothers usually attempt to minimize change. Message 2 aimed to make conservative mothers recognize future loss caused by postponement of vaccination; it told them that selecting the conservative status quo meant selecting the possibility of their daughter suffering cervical cancer [2]. Message 3 conveyed information to increase confidence in the reliability and safety of the vaccine, because many of the mothers obviously felt uneasy about it. This message encouraged the mothers to perceive of the vaccination more positively by dispelling the near-term-loss image of adverse events. Message 4 used a numeric comparison of the merits and risks of vaccination. It showed how unwillingness to vaccinate their daughters meant selection of future bad consequences for them. For creating Message 5, we utilized the framing theory of behavioral economics, by creating a way to show numerical data that significantly affects decision-making. In this message, the safety of the HPV vaccine was expressed by the impressive-looking number of 99.993 %, thus changing the focus from the rare probability of severe adverse events, 0.007 % [14]
Degree of importance the mothers rated the message points when making a decision concerning their daughters’ actual HPV vaccination
Group A: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters without preconditions, even under recommendation suspension (Group A-willing), and those who would vaccinate their daughters immediately after a recommendation restart, without other preconditions (Group A-restart) Group B: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters only after inoculation of close friends and acquaintances Group C: Mothers who would vaccinate their daughters only after inoculation of many other girls of the same age group Group D: Mothers who would stipulate other preconditions before they will vaccinate their daughters Group E: Mothers who wouldn’t inoculate their daughters under any circumstances The answers for each question were scored and the average score was compared for each group. Scoring was as follows: Very applicable: 2, Applicable: 1, Intermediate: 0, Inapplicable: -1, Not applicable at all: -2