| Literature DB >> 29773702 |
Maurane Riesen1,2, Garyfallos Konstantinoudis1,3, Ben D Spycher1,4, Christian L Althaus1, Phung Lang5, Nicola Low1, Christoph Hatz5, Mirjam Maeusezahl6, Anne Spaar6, Marc Bühlmann7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding the factors that influence human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake is critically important to the design of effective vaccination programmes. In Switzerland, HPV vaccination uptake (≥1 dose) by age 16 years among women ranges from 31% to 80% across 26 cantons (states). Our objective was to identify factors that are associated with the spatial variation in HPV vaccination uptake.Entities:
Keywords: geographical variation; human papillomavirus; inla; spatial analysis; vaccination; vaccine scepticism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29773702 PMCID: PMC5961588 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Comparison of Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression models that explain the spatial heterogeneity of HPV vaccination uptake in Switzerland
| Model type | Spatial component | Cantonal random effect | Covariates* | DIC |
| Model 1 | X | 11 513 | ||
| Model 2 | X | X | 11 489 | |
| Model 3 (full) | X | X | X | 11 417 |
| Model 4 | X | X | 11 432 | |
| Model 5 | X | 11 541 | ||
| Model 6 | X | X | 11 450 | |
| Model 7 | X | 11 557 | ||
| Model 8† | X | – |
*Nationality, urbanisation level, Swiss socioeconomic position, political opinion, religious denominations, language region, school-based human papillomavirus vaccination programme, survey period.
†Model 8 (univariable) was adjusted for one variable at time.
BYM, Besag-York-Mollié prior; DIC, deviance information criterion.
Figure 1Crude human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake per district in Switzerland over all survey periods (2009–2016). The vaccination uptake was computed by dividing the number of girls who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine with the total number of responding girls from the corresponding district. White areas represent cantons for which we did not get authorisation to analyse the data.
Characteristics of the included participants of the Swiss National Vaccination Coverage Survey on human papillomavirus
| Covariates | Proportion | Total N | Vaccination | N |
| Nationality | ||||
| Unknown | 0.12 | 1051 | 0.66 | 690 |
| Swiss | 0.70 | 6254 | 0.51 | 3199 |
| Non-Swiss | 0.19 | 1660 | 0.60 | 991 |
| Urbanisation levels* | ||||
| Rural | 0.17 | 1549 | 0.49 | 758 |
| Semi-urban | 0.18 | 1650 | 0.53 | 868 |
| Urban | 0.64 | 5766 | 0.56 | 3254 |
| SEP quartile* | ||||
| Lowest SEP | 0.26 | 2364 | 0.59 | 1401 |
| Baseline SEP | 0.53 | 4722 | 0.53 | 2504 |
| Highest SEP | 0.21 | 1879 | 0.52 | 975 |
| Political opinion* | ||||
| Lowest acceptance | 0.24 | 2177 | 0.38 | 815 |
| Baseline acceptance | 0.59 | 5285 | 0.59 | 3096 |
| Highest acceptance | 0.17 | 1503 | 0.64 | 969 |
| Religious denomination* | ||||
| No majority | 0.46 | 4099 | 0.57 | 2326 |
| ≥50% Protestant | 0.11 | 973 | 0.45 | 435 |
| ≥50% Catholic | 0.43 | 3893 | 0.54 | 2119 |
| Language region* | ||||
| German speaking | 0.66 | 5941 | 0.49 | 2930 |
| French speaking | 0.27 | 2437 | 0.68 | 1658 |
| Italian speaking | 0.07 | 587 | 0.5 | 292 |
| School-based vaccination† | ||||
| No | 0.33 | 2936 | 0.37 | 1084 |
| Yes | 0.67 | 6029 | 0.63 | 3796 |
| Survey period† | ||||
| 2009–2010 | 0.23 | 2064 | 0.46 | 945 |
| 2011–2013 | 0.42 | 3793 | 0.54 | 2039 |
| 2014–2016 | 0.35 | 3108 | 0.61 | 1896 |
*Municipality level covariate.
†Cantonal level covariate.
HPV, human papillomavirus; SEP, socioeconomic position.
Figure 2Spatial variation of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake in Switzerland at the municipal level. Top panel: spatial variation accounting only for correlation between neighbouring municipalities (Model 1, Besag-York-Mollié model, BYM unadjusted); middle panel: remaining spatial variation after adjusting for cantonal differences (Model 2, BYM cantonal); bottom panel: remaining spatial variation after adjusting for cantonal differences and covariates (Model 3, full). Shown are the differences from the mean on the log odds scale. Municipalities with no information about HPV vaccination uptake borrow information from the first-order neighbouring municipalities. White areas represent cantons for which we did not get authorisation to analyse the data.
Figure 3OR and 95% credible intervals for being vaccinated for human papillomavirus. The full model (model 3) is adjusted for all covariates and includes random effect terms to account for cantonal and municipal differences in uptake and spatial autocorrelation at the municipality level. The adjusted model (model 7) includes all covariates without any random effect terms. The univariable model (model 8) includes each covariate individually at a time without random effect terms.