Success of community approach to HPV vaccination in school-based and non-school-based settings in Haiti.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the success of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program among adolescent girls aged 9-14 years in Haiti and to understand predictors of completion of a two-dose HPV vaccination series.
METHODS: Data collection was conducted during HPV vaccination campaigns in Port-au-Prince between August 2016 and April 2017. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with vaccination series completion of school based and non-school based vaccination delivery modalities.
RESULTS: Of the 2,445 adolescent girls who participated in the awareness program, 1,994 participants (1,307 in non-school program, 687 in school program) received the first dose of the vaccine; 1,199 (92%) in the non-school program and 673 (98%) in the school program also received the second dose. Menarche (OR: 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14), if the participant was a prior patient at the GHESKIO clinics (OR: 2.17; 95% CI, 1.32-3.58), and participating in the school-based program (OR: 4.17; 95% CI, 2.14-8.12) were significantly associated with vaccination completion.
CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination in school- and non-school-based settings was successful, suggesting that a nationwide HPV vaccination campaign using either approach would be successful using either approach.

Introduction

Cervical cancer is the fourth most prevalent cancer in women and the fourth most frequent cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide [1]. These deaths are largely concentrated in the developing world, with approximately 85% of the deaths from cervical cancer occurring in low- and middle-income countries [2]. In Haiti, cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women, resulting in 563 deaths annually [3]. Most cases of cervical cancer are caused by infection with a high-risk strain of human papillomavirus (HPV) [4-6]. In the Caribbean region, the prevalence of the high-risk strains HPV 16/18 in women with normal cervical cytology is estimated to be 15.8% [7].

Cervical cancer can be prevented through the screening and treatment of early lesions, as well as the administration of HPV vaccine [8-10]. There are currently three HPV vaccines available: the bivalent, quadrivalent, and nanovalent vaccines [11, 12]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends vaccination against HPV in girls aged 9 to 14, targeting primarily those who are not yet sexually active [13]. For girls aged 9 to 14, a two-dose schedule is recommended for cost effectiveness and to facilitate higher coverage in adolescents.

The HPV vaccine has already been introduced in many developing countries, such as Rwanda, Botswana, Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, and Kenya, through a variety of delivery strategies, including health facility-based (i.e., non-school-based) and school-based programs [5, 14–20]. The Haitian Ministry of Public Health and of the Population (MSPP) considers cervical cancer a national public health priority and is willing to support the implementation of structures necessary for the introduction of the HPV vaccine in Haiti, including the launch of a nationally accessible screening program.

In 2009, a three-dose HPV vaccination pilot program was launched in Mirebalais, in central Haiti, supported by an initiative of Zanmi Lasante/Partners in Health (PIH). Secondary schools in the area were targeted with the goal of vaccinating 3,806 students. Zanmi Lasante reported that despite difficulties, including the earthquake of 2010, 86.8% of the targeted population received the second dose and 75.8% received the third dose of the HPV vaccine [21].

This study describes the results from a second HPV vaccination program in Haiti. In 2016, the Haitian Study Group on Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (GHESKIO) introduced the two-dose HPV vaccine in an urban setting in Haiti for the first time using two community-based vaccination strategies: a non-school-based approach and a school-based approach. The objective of this study was to assess the completion of the vaccination series among participants from both approaches, as well as to assess whether certain participant and guardian characteristics were associated with the completion of the vaccination series.

Methods and materials

HPV awareness and vaccination program

In 2016, GHESKIO, in collaboration with the MSPP and PIH, received 4,000 doses of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine from Merck Pharmaceuticals, effective against HPV 6, 11, and high-risk HPV 16 and 18.

In preparation for this vaccination effort, community health workers were trained to raise awareness of HPV, cervical cancer, modes of prevention, and the use of the HPV vaccine.; Awareness campaigns targeting adolescent girls were conducted at the GHESKIO clinic and throughout the neighboring communities and target schools from July 2016 through April 2017. As part of the campaign, meetings were organized in the community at large with school directors, parents, teachers, and students to educate them on HPV, cervical cancer, and the importance of the HPV vaccine.

From August 1, 2016 to April 5, 2017 participants of the vaccination program received up to two doses of GARDASIL® at a six-month interval, in accordance with WHO standards both then and now [22]. Participants were recruited via two community-based approaches: non-school-based and school-based. The non-school based group was vaccinated at the GHESKIO clinic in downtown Port-au-Prince and the school-based group was vaccinated at their respective schools.

Eligible participants were adolescent girls aged 9 to 14 who were willing to receive the vaccine and had parental consent. Participants with a history of allergy, asthma, or ongoing acute illness were excluded. The HIV status of participants was not an exclusion criterion.

For the non-school-based approach, eligible girls and their guardians were recruited from the GHESKIO adolescent and pediatric clinics. Guardians were invited to bring the adolescent girls to the GHESKIO clinic for vaccination. A participant’s guardian was defined as the person who accompanied them to their first vaccination dose (e.g., family member, family friend, neighbor).

For the school-based approach, medical staff went to designated schools near the GHESKIO clinic to administer vaccines to eligible girls. Medical staff included nurses, community workers, and a data clerk. Thirteen schools were selected based on previous experiences working with the GHESKIO community team and the willingness of school directors to participate in the vaccination program. To receive the vaccine, recruited participants were required to have a signed permission sheet provided at school or sent to their home. The participant’s guardian was defined as the individual who signed the permission sheet.

For both approaches, participants were assigned a field worker and given an appointment for their second dose during the first dose of the vaccination. For participants who missed their second dose appointment, the assigned field worker would conduct three phone calls, and if the participant could not be reached by phone, the assigned field worker would make a home visit. Additionally, girls who received the first dose of HPV vaccine and their families were invited to an end-of-year party held by GHESKIO, to maintain contact as an effort to ensure retention for the second dose of HPV vaccine.

Data collection and analyses

A standardized questionnaire was administered to participants and their guardians in the non-school cohort and to participants only in the school cohort. The questionnaire was administered prior to vaccination, on the day of administration of each dose of the HPV vaccine. For the non-school cohort, the guardian was the person accompanying the participant to the vaccination. For the school cohort, the guardian was the person who signed the vaccination consent form; basic personal information and authorization to vaccinate were obtained via a letter sent out to participants’ guardians, since they did not accompany the girls to school for the vaccination. The questionnaire was designed specifically for this study, and was administered in Creole, the native Haitian language. The study questionnaire can be found in S1 File. Side effects that occurred within 15 minutes of any vaccination dose were recorded in the questionnaire.

Comparisons were conducted between participants who received the first dose only and participants who received both doses using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Fisher’s exact tests when patient count was fewer than 5 for any category. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for continuous variables. Logistic regressions were used to identify characteristics associated with HPV vaccination series completion; covariates included age (continuous), education level (lower than secondary school, secondary school), menarche (yes, no), having been previously followed as patient in the GHESKIO clinic (yes, no), neighborhood distance from GHESKIO clinic (<1 kilometer, ≥1 kilometer; 1 kilometer was selected as a proxy for whether participants had ease of access to a GHESKIO health facility, measured from GHESKIO clinic to the central point of each neighborhood using the Google Maps ruler tool), guardian age (continuous), and guardian relationship to participant (mother, other). Given the low availability of information on participants’ HIV status in the school cohort, it was not included in the regression model. Due to the low frequency of participants receiving only the first dose, the regression analysis was performed among all participants rather than by cohort, and cohort was included as a variable in the regression. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina).

Ethics statement

This project was approved by the GHESKIO Institutional Review Board (Comite des Droits Humains) on June 25th, 2016. Parental consent was obtained prior to vaccination and documented in the study questionnaire; in the school cohort written parental consent was obtained, and in the non-school cohort parental consent was obtained verbally. Permission to conduct the project was obtained from the Ministry of Health (MSPP), who provided supervising staff to participate in this vaccination campaign.

Results

Vaccination consent and completion

A total of 2,445 adolescent girls participated in the awareness campaigns. 1,698 girls participated in the non-school cohort and 747 in the school cohort. The majority of participants in the awareness program consented and received the first dose of the HPV vaccine (non-school: 1,307 [77.0%], school: 687 [92.0%]). The vast majority of participants who had the first dose also received the second dose of the HPV vaccine in both the non-school (n = 1,199 [91.7%]) and school cohorts (n = 673 [98.0%]). Among all girls participating in the awareness program, 70.6% of girls in the non-school cohort and 90.1% of girls in the school cohort received both doses of the HPV vaccine. The mean time to the second vaccination was 5.8 months, ranging from 4.4 to 7.6 months. According to WHO guidelines, if the interval of time between dose 1 and 2 is less than 5 months, a third dose is recommended at least 6 months after dose 1. In our study, 0.2% (n = 5) participants received dose 2 within 5 months of receiving dose 1, none of which received a third dose. Overall, both the non-school and school cohorts completed the HPV vaccination series successfully.

Characteristics of adolescents with ≥1 dose of the HPV vaccine

Overall, the mean age of participants at the first vaccination was 11.7 years old (standard deviation [SD] = 1.5 years) and more than half had not experienced menarche at the time of the first vaccination (65.3%, Table 1); this was similar in the school and non-school cohorts. Participants previously followed as patients in the GHESKIO clinic represented 30.6% and 36.7% of the school and non-school cohorts, respectively. HIV status was not available for most participants (71.8%), especially for the school cohort (unavailable for 94.3%), but prevalence of HIV was low (6.7%) among those with data available. More than half (58.8%) of the non-school cohort were from neighborhoods within 1 kilometer of the GHESKIO clinic, whereas only around one fifth (21.4%) were from neighborhoods within 1 kilometer of the GHESKIO clinic in the school cohort.

Table 1

Characteristics of participating adolescents with at least 1 dose of HPV vaccine and their guardians, overall and by cohort.

	All Participants, N(%)				Non-School, N(%)				School, N(%)
	Total	Received 1st dose only	Received both doses		Total	Received 1st dose only	Received both doses		Total	Received 1st dose only	Received both doses
Parameter	(N = 1,994)	(N = 122)	(N = 1,872)	P-valuea	(N = 1,307)	(N = 108)	(N = 1,199)	P-valuea	(N = 687)	(N = 14)	(N = 673)	P-valuea
Participant Characteristics
Age, mean (SD)	11.7 (1.5)	11.7 (1.5)	11.7 (1.5)	0.714	11.8 (1.4)	11.7 (1.4)	11.8 (1.4)	0.424	11.5 (1.6)	11.4 (1.7)	11.5 (1.6)	0.691
Previous GHESKIO clinic patient, n (%)b	541 (27.1)	24 (19.7)	517 (27.6)	0.055	470 (36.0)	24 (22.2)	446 (37.2)	0.002*	71 (10.3)	0 (0.0)	71 (10.5)	0.382
Experienced menarche, n (%)	690 (34.6)	32 (26.2)	658 (35.1)	0.044*	480 (36.7)	30 (27.8)	450 (37.5)	0.044*	210 (30.6)	2 (14.3)	208 (30.9)	0.247
HIV data available, n (%)	563 (28.2)	34 (27.9)	529 (28.3)		524 (40.1)	33 (30.6)	491 (41.0)		39 (5.7)	1 (7.1)	38 (5.6)
HIV positive, n (%)c	38 (6.7)	4 (3.3)	34 (1.8)	0.276	38 (7.3)	4 (12.1)	34 (6.9)	0.287	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	–
Education data available, n (%)	1,961 (98.3)	118 (96.7)	1,843 (98.5)		1,274 (97.5)	104 (96.3)	1,170 (97.6)		687 (100)	14 (100)	673 (100)
Secondary school, n (%)c	398 (20.3)	17 (13.9)	381 (20.4)	0.101	205 (16.1)	14 (13.5)	191 (16.3)	0.446	193 (28.1)	3 (21.4)	190 (28.2)	0.767
Neighborhood <1km from GHESKIO clinic, n (%)d	916 (45.9)	67 (54.9)	849 (45.4)	0.040*	769 (58.8)	65 (60.2)	704 (58.7)	0.766	147 (21.4)	2 (14.3)	145 (21.5)	0.745
Guardian Characteristics
Age
Mean (SD)	35.4 (10.3)	33.6 (10.1)	35.5 (10.3)	0.017*	33.7 (11.0)	33.3 (10.3)	33.8 (11.0)	0.614	38.5 (8.0)	35.9 (7.7)	38.6 (8.0)	0.157
Min-Max [Q1, Q3]	(18–77) [28, 41]	(18–63) [27, 40]	(18–77) [29, 42]		(18–77) [25, 40]	(18–63) [27, 39]	(18–77) [25, 40]		(19–71) [33, 43]	(25–54) [31, 42]	(19–71) [33, 43]
Sex, female, n (%)	1,757 (88.1)	100 (82.0)	1,657 (88.5)	0.030*	1,093 (83.6)	87 (80.6)	1,006 (83.9)	0.368	664 (96.7)	13 (92.9)	651 (96.7)	0.382
Relationship to girl, mother, n (%)	1,075 (53.9)	40 (32.8)	1,035 (55.3)	<0.001*	439 (33.6)	27 (25.0)	412 (34.4)	0.049*	636 (92.6)	13 (92.9)	623 (92.6)	1.000

Abbreviations: GHESKIO, Haitian Study Group on Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HPV, human papillomavirus; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; N, number; Q1: first quartile; Q3: third quartile; SD, standard deviation. Notes: * P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

a P-values were calculated for the comparison between girls who received the 1st dose only and girls who received both doses using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables. Fisher’s exact test were used when a count was <5.

b Indicated that the participant has been previously followed as patient in the GHESKIO clinic.

c Proportions are presented among those with data available.

d Distance from the neighborhood where the girl and guardian were living relative to GHESKIO clinic.

The mean age of guardians was 35.4 years old (SD = 10.3 years) and the vast majority (88.1%) of participants had female guardians. In the non-school cohort, a third of the guardians were the participants’ mother (33.6%), followed by extended family (26.7%) and companions other than father, older sibling, or godparents (25.6%). Most of these other companions were friends or neighbors of the participants’ parents. In the school cohort, almost all guardians were the participants’ mother (92.6%).

Vaccination side effects

A total of 50 participants (2.5%) who received the first dose and 157 participants (8.4%) who received the second dose experienced malaise within two days. Among the non-school cohort, the most commonly reported side effect within two days was arm ache at both dose 1 (1.9%; n = 25) and dose 2 (1.6%; n = 19) (Fig 1). For the school cohort, the most common side effects were fever at dose 1 (1.6%; n = 11), and arm ache (3.0%; n = 20) and headache (2.1%; n = 14) at dose 2.

Fig 1

Side effects within two days among participants with at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine by cohort.

a Only 55 participants (non-school:41, school: 14) and 66 participants (non-school: 22, school: 44) reported specific side effects at dose 1 and dose 2, respectively. However, a total of 50 and 157 participants reported malaise within 2 days at dose 1 and dose 2, respectively. b A non-prespecified event reported by one participant in the non-school cohort was allergic reaction after vaccine.

Characteristics associated with vaccination series completion

In univariate assessments among all participants who received the first HPV vaccine dose, a higher percentages of girls who received both doses lived less than 1 kilometer from the GHESKIO clinic (54.9 v. 45.4%; P = 0.040, Table 1), and had experienced menarche (35.1% v. 26.2%; P = 0.044), compared to girls who only received one dose. Receiving both doses was associated with having an older Guardian (35.5 v. 33.6 years old; P = 0.017) who is female (88.5% v. 82.0%; P = 0.030) and the girl’s mother (55.3% v. 32.8%; P<0.001).

Overall, the proportion of participants who were patients at GHESKIO among those who completed the vaccination series was not quite statistically different from that of participants who have not been a patient at the clinic (P = 0.055; Table 1). However, in the non-school cohort, 37% of patients who completed the HPV vaccine series were previously followed at a GHESKIO clinic versus only 22% among patients who did not complete the series (P<0.002). In the non-school cohort, among patients who received the first dose and had never been a patient at a GHESKIO clinic (n = 837), 753 (90.0%) completed the vaccination series. For this subset of girls, participant and guardian characteristics were not significantly different between those who completed the vaccine series and those who did not.

After adjusting for participant age, education, whether the participant was a GHESKIO patient or not, cohort (school or non-school), neighborhood distance from GHESKIO clinic, and guardian characteristics, girls who had experienced menarche had 1.87 times higher odds of completing the vaccination series than those who had not experienced menarche (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–3.14; P = 0.019; Table 2). Participants previously followed as a patient at the GHESKIO clinic had 2.17 times the odds of receiving a second dose than participants who were not (95% CI, 1.32–3.58; P = 0.002). Additionally, participants who received the vaccine in a school-based setting had 4.17 times higher odds of vaccination series completion than those who were vaccinated in a non-school-based setting (95% CI, 2.14–8.12; P<0.001). Participants with guardians aged 26 to 35 years had lower odds of completing the vaccination series, compared to those with guardians aged 46 or above (odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI, 0.36–1.15, P = 0.006). Participant age, education, living within 1 kilometer of GHESKIO clinic, and guardian relationship were not significantly associated with vaccination series completion in multivariable regressions.

Table 2

Multivariable regression of completion of the vaccination series among participating adolescents who received at least 1 dose of HPV vaccination.

	All participants (N = 1,960)
Variable	Adjusted OR	95% CI	P-Value
Participant characteristics
Participant age (years)	0.92	(0.78, 1.08)	0.311
Participant education
Secondary	1.10	(0.62, 1.97)	0.744
<Secondary	Reference
Experienced menarche
Yes	1.87	(1.11, 3.14)	0.019*
No	Reference
Patient at GHESKIO clinicb
Yes	2.17	(1.32, 3.58)	0.002*
No	Reference
Cohort
School	4.17	(2.14, 8.12)	<0.001*
Non-school	Reference
Neighborhood distance from GHESKIO clinicc
<1km	1.05	(0.71, 1.57)	0.800
≥1km	Reference
Guardian characteristics
Guardian age (years)
18 to 25	1.23	(0.64, 2.36)	0.220
26 to 35	0.64	(0.36, 1.15)	0.006*
36 to 45	1.13	(0.59, 2.16)	0.419
46 or older	Reference
Guardian relationship
Mother	1.50	(0.93, 2.42)	0.098
Otherd	Reference

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; GHESKIO, Haitian Study Group on Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections; OR, odds ratio. Note:

* P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

a Multivariable regression analysis include all the variables listed in the table as independent variables, and completion of the HPV vaccination series as the dependent variable. Patients with missing information education level, menarche, GHESKIO patient history, neighborhood, or guardian information (1.7%; n = 34) were excluded from the regression.

b Indicated that the participant has been previously followed as patient in the GHESKIO clinic.

c Distance from the neighborhood where the girl and guardian were living relative to GHESKIO clinic.

d Other guardian relationships included other family members (father, aunt/uncle, cousin, sibling, grandparent, parent/sibling-in-law, unspecified family member), godparents, friends of family, neighbor, and caregiver (“akonpayatè”).

Discussion

This study demonstrates that both non-school and school-based approaches to HPV vaccination in an urban setting in Haiti resulted in high rate of 2-dose HPV vaccination series completion. Among all girls who participated in the awareness program in the non-school and school cohort, 77.0% and 92.0% received a first dose of the vaccine, and 70.6% and 90.1% received both doses of the HPV vaccine, respectively.

The high consent rate (92.0%) and vaccination series completion rate among girls who participated in the awareness program (90.1%) in the school-based setting of this vaccination program are consistent with findings from other studies assessing a school-based approach in resource-limited countries [23]. In Rwanda, media campaigns followed by a national HPV vaccination program in 2011 targeting girls in the sixth grade resulted in 88,927 of the 94,141 (94%) eligible girls in school in the country receiving the three-dose vaccination series in a school-based setting [15, 16]. In a national school-based HPV vaccination program in South Africa, 91% of schools were reached with vaccination sessions, and 86.6% of fourth grade girls more than 8 years old received the two-dose vaccination series [19]. The high adherence between doses observed in our program (98.0%) is also consistent with that observed in Partners In Health/Zanmi Lasante’s 2009 school-based program in rural communities (75.8%) [21].

Participants vaccinated in the non-school-based setting were still likely to receive both doses of the vaccine: 70.6% of the girls who participated in the awareness program at the health center also received the second dose of the vaccine. This is also supported by findings in resource-limited regions. As part of the 2011 national HPV vaccination program in Rwanda discussed above, the health facility-based program, which targeted sixth-grade girls absent from school on vaccination days and girls of eligible age but were not enrolled in school, vaccinated 85.2% of all eligible girls nationally [15]. In Mexico, the roll out of HPV vaccines in 2008 and delivered through mobile health clinics for girls aged 12 to 16 years in targeted municipalities with low human development index achieved 98% and 81% of coverage of the first and third dose of the vaccine, respectively [20].

This study also shows that that after the initial consent and first dose of vaccination, patient attrition was low, with successful completion of the HPV vaccination series observed in 91.7% and 98.0% in the non-school and school cohort, respectively. The results suggest that reaching the targeted adolescents and obtaining initial consent may be the largest obstacles to adolescent girls receiving an initial HPV vaccination in the context of urban Haiti but that high retention of girls for the second dose can be feasibly achieved in both school and non-school settings.

As previous research has shown, a successful expansion of an HPV vaccination campaign to a national-level in a low-to-middle-income country requires local and international support and financial investment [24-26]. A key aspect highlighted by similar programs in Mozambique was that out-of-school and unenrolled girls would be missed by school-based vaccination programs; an adaptable model that would allow communities to target this demographic via both school-based and non-school based vaccination programs is recommended. The high rate of successful completion in our study in both the non-school and school cohorts, provides evidence that such adaptable models would be appropriate in Haiti.

This study is subject to some limitations. The vaccination campaign was conducted only in the metropolitan area of Port-au Prince and findings may not be generalizable to all of Haiti. Additionally, this study did not record information for participants who did not consent to the vaccine after participating in the awareness program, or reasons for non-completion of vaccine series, which would be useful information to capture in future studies. This study also only included patients who voluntarily agreed to participate in the awareness program, who may have already had an interest in the vaccine, and may have behaved different from a more general population of adolescents who are not willing to learn about HPV and vaccination. Further, the multivariable regressions could be biased due to unmeasured confounding from unavailable variables, such as HIV status, socioeconomic status, and guardian education level. Finally, this study did not recruit adolescent boys to receive the HPV vaccine. Any long-term HPV vaccination program will have to account for the vaccination of adolescent boys to prevent HPV-related cancers.

Public health implications

Since 2006, safe and effective vaccines against HPV have been available, yet by 2014, only 0.1% and 1.0% of all female aged 10–20 years were estimated to have received the full course of HPV vaccination in low-middle-income and low-income countries, respectively [27, 28]. Thus, the populations with the highest HPV incidence and mortality remain unvaccinated, and there is a need for rapid roll-out of the vaccine to these regions.

Studies on HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries show both school-based and health facility-based strategies achieved high overall success measured by vaccine uptake and adherence between doses [5, 23]. The success of different types of strategies, including both school-based and health-facility-based approaches, supports that there is no “gold standard” for designing an HPV vaccination program [23]. The high vaccination coverage and adherence between first and subsequent vaccine doses across the assessed studies suggest that approaches implemented by vaccination programs should be tailored to the challenges and needs of the region in which it is implemented.

Obstacles identified by other HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries include reaching and maintaining follow-up [5]. The high adherence of our program shows that initial recruitment is feasible in both school and non-school settings and that series completion is very high among girls who initiate the series. Future efforts are warranted for the expansion of the reach and education of girls and guardians about HPV vaccination and cervical cancer, especially outside of a school setting.

This study is the first of its kind in an urban Haitian setting, and the results support that a large-scale HPV vaccination program in urban Haiti would be well-received. It demonstrates the successful completion of the two-dose HPV vaccination series in both school-based and non-school-based settings, with over 90% of patients completing the vaccination series in both settings conditional on consent and administration of the first dose. The findings support the future feasibility of similar HPV vaccination programs in Haiti.

HPV vaccination questionnaire administered by GHESKIO (Creole) for school-based and non-school based strategies.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36531

Success of Community Approach to HPV Vaccination in School-Based and Non-School-Based Settings in Haiti

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bane,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This is a relevant work for Haiti and potentially for other Caribbean countries. This is a short report for a short community HPV vaccination campaign in Urban Haiti for adolescent girls.

It had a high degree of success given the rates they managed to reach.

Few questions minor issues:

1. For descriptive analysis on table 1, please add more descriptives for age of the guardian. Quartiles and range would be useful.

2. Explain how the distance were measured. How this 1km cut-off was established.

3. How the adverse effects were collected. I do not see a description of this in the manuscript.

4. For the logistic regression:

- Good that all covariates were introduced. Is there any reason besides availability for these small set of covariates?

- Why the age of guardian in the regression was introduced as linear?

- Did you try more levels of distance?

5. In a supplementary (not necessary for the main manuscript) would be good to have a more detailed list the guardian relationship

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information.  In addition, please ensure that you have suitably acknowledged the contributions of any local collaborators involved in this work in your authorship list and/or Acknowledgements. Authorship criteria is based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - for further information please see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Analysis Group, Inc.

4.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

4.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper the Authors performed an assessment of two modalities of delivering HPV vaccines to adolescent girls in an urban setting in Port-au-Prince Haiti. In particular, they estimated descriptive statistics and utilized logistic regression models to examine characteristics associated with completion of vaccination doses for each delivery method. This study is very interesting however 5 points need to be addressed:

1. Abstract page 2. Methods. Change this section to read “Data collection was conducted during HPV vaccination campaigns in Port -au -Prince between August 2016 and April 2017. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with vaccination series completion of school based and non-school based vaccination delivery modalities.”

2. Abstract page 2. Conclusions. Rewrite to read "Vaccination in school- and non-school-based settings was successful, suggesting that a nationwide HPV vaccination campaign using either approach would be successful".

3. Main text Methods and materials: Page 5 Line 77. End the sentence at after HPV vaccine. The next line 78 should then read “Awareness campaigns targeting adolescent girls were conducted at the GHESKIO clinic and throughout neighboring communities and target schools from July 2016 through April 2017”

4. Literature review is not enough. There are some articles, which must be added to literature review: a) Soi, C. Human papillomavirus vaccine delivery in Mozambique: identification of implementation performance drivers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); b) Soi, C. Implementation Strategy and Cost of Mozambique’s HPV vaccine demonstration project; c) Soi, C. Global health systems partnerships: A mixed methods analysis of HPV vaccine delivery network actors in Mozambique.

5. DOI of all the references must be added (you can use "" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://crossref.org/").

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Mar 2021

Editor’s Comments

This is a relevant work for Haiti and potentially for other Caribbean countries. This is a short report for a short community HPV vaccination campaign in Urban Haiti for adolescent girls.

It had a high degree of success given the rates they managed to reach.

Comment 1: For descriptive analysis on table 1, please add more descriptives for age of the guardian. Quartiles and range would be useful.

Response to Comment 1: We thank the Editor for this comment and have added the following information to Table 1, Pg. 10 for guardian age: minimum, maximum, 1st quartile, median, 3rd quartile.

Comment 2: Explain how the distance were measured. How this 1km cut-off was established.

Response to Comment 2: The 1km cut-off was selected a priori to data analysis as a proxy for whether participants had ease of access to a GHESKIO health facility. Distance was measured using the Google Maps ruler tool from GHESKIO clinic to the central point of each neighborhood. This information has also been added to the manuscript on Pg. 8:

“Logistic regressions were used to identify characteristics associated with HPV vaccination series completion; covariates included age (continuous), education level (lower than secondary school, secondary school), menarche (yes, no), having been previously followed as patient in the GHESKIO clinic (yes, no), neighborhood distance from GHESKIO clinic (1 kilometer, ≥1 kilometer; 1 kilometer was selected as a proxy for whether participants had ease of access to a GHESKIO health facility, measured from GHESKIO clinic to the central point of each neighborhood using the Google Maps ruler tool), guardian age (continuous), and guardian relationship to participant (mother, other).”

Comment 3: How the adverse effects were collected. I do not see a description of this in the manuscript.

Response to Comment 3: We thank the Editor for their comment and agree that clarity with regards to how adverse effects were collected is needed. Adverse effects were collected within 15 minutes of each vaccination dose and recorded on that participants questionnaire. This information has also been added to the manuscript on Pg. 8:

“Side effects that occurred within 15 minutes of any vaccination does were recorded in the questionnaire.”

Comment 4: For the logistic regression: Good that all covariates were introduced. Is there any reason besides availability for these small set of covariates? Why the age of guardian in the regression was introduced as linear? Did you try more levels of distance?

Response to Comment 4: We thank the Editor for these suggestions. Covariates included in this analysis were constrained by data availability.

In response to the feedback on guardian age, we modeled guardian age as a categorical variable with four levels: 18 to 25 years, 26 to 35 years, 36 to 45 years, 46 or older. Girls with guardians aged 26 to 35 years had statistically significantly lower odds of receiving at least 1 dose. We have updated Table 2 to present the results of the regression using categorical instead of continuous guardian age as covariate (see Pg. 14 of the manuscript).

We did not initially attempt to stratify by additional levels of distance. A sensitivity analysis was performed to include 3 levels of distance: 1 km, 1 to 5 km, and 5 km from GHESKIO clinic. Odds ratios and significance of covariates are largely consistent with the original analysis, and no statistically significant difference between the three distance levels was observed. Hence, we did not change our analysis to add additional levels of distance, and have presented the sensitivity findings as reported in revised paper, and the attached copy of responses to reviewers (not included here due to table formatting constraints).

Comment 5: In a supplementary (not necessary for the main manuscript) would be good to have a more detailed list the guardian relationship

Response to Comment 5: Detailed list of guardian relationships has been included in the manuscript as a footnote to Table 2, on Pg. 14. The complete list of guardian relationships in the sample are as follows:

Relationship Count (%)

Mother/Father (“Manman/Papa”) 1,162 (58.3%)

Neighbor (“Vwazin/Vwazine”) 310 (15.6%)

Aunt/Uncle (“Matant/Mononk”) 163 (8.2%)

Cousin (“Gran konzin/Gran kouzen”) 152 (7.6%)

Older sister/Older brother (“Gran sè/Gran frè”) 104 (5.2%)

Grandmother/Grandfather (“Granmè/Granpè”) 34 (1.7%)

Godmother/Godfather (“Marenn/Parenn”) 16 (0.8%)

Mother-in-law/father-in-law (“Bèl mè /Bo pè”) 15 (0.8%)

Mother friend (“Zanmi manman”) 14 (0.7%)

Other relation (“Lòt relasyon”), please specify 24 (1.2%)

Caregiver (“Akonpayatè”) 13 (0.7%)

Brother-in-law/Sister-in-law (“Bel sè / Bo frè”) 4 (0.2%)

Godmother (“Makomè”) 3 (0.2%)

Godson/Goddaughter (“Fiyel”) 2 (0.1%)

Nephew/Niece (“Neve”) 1 (0.1%)

Family (“Fanmi”) 1 (0.1%)

Reviewer #1 Comments

In this paper the Authors performed an assessment of two modalities of delivering HPV vaccines to adolescent girls in an urban setting in Port-au-Prince Haiti. In particular, they estimated descriptive statistics and utilized logistic regression models to examine characteristics associated with completion of vaccination doses for each delivery method. This study is very interesting however 5 points need to be addressed:

Comment 1: Abstract page 2. Methods. Change this section to read “Data collection was conducted during HPV vaccination campaigns in Port -au -Prince between August 2016 and April 2017. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with vaccination series completion of school based and non-school based vaccination delivery modalities.”

Response to Comment 1: We thank the reviewer for their comment and have incorporated the suggested language in the abstract on Pg. 2.

Comment 2: Abstract page 2. Conclusions. Rewrite to read "Vaccination in school- and non-school-based settings was successful, suggesting that a nationwide HPV vaccination campaign using either approach would be successful".

Response to Comment 2: See response to Comment 1.

Comment 3: Main text Methods and materials: Page 5 Line 77. End the sentence at after HPV vaccine. The next line 78 should then read “Awareness campaigns targeting adolescent girls were conducted at the GHESKIO clinic and throughout neighboring communities and target schools from July 2016 through April 2017”

Response to Comment 3: We have incorporated the suggested language on Pg. 5.

Comment 4: Literature review is not enough. There are some articles, which must be added to literature review: a) Soi, C. Human papillomavirus vaccine delivery in Mozambique: identification of implementation performance drivers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); b) Soi, C. Implementation Strategy and Cost of Mozambique’s HPV vaccine demonstration project; c) Soi, C. Global health systems partnerships: A mixed methods analysis of HPV vaccine delivery network actors in Mozambique.

Response to Comment 4: The suggested references have been incorporated into the discussion section on Pg. 17:

“As previous research has shown, a successful expansion of an HPV vaccination campaign to a national-level in a low-to-middle-income country requires local and international support and financial investment [24-26]. A key aspect highlighted by similar programs in Mozambique was that out-of-school and unenrolled girls would be missed by school-based vaccination programs; an adaptable model that would allow communities to target this demographic via both school-based and non-school based vaccination programs is recommended. The high rate of successful completion in our study in both the non-school and school cohorts, provides evidence that such adaptable models would be appropriate in Haiti.”

Comment 5: DOI of all the references must be added (you can use "https://crossref.org/").

Response to Comment 5: DOI inputs for all references have been updated.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_HPV-vaccination-study_02.15.2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36531R1

Success of Community Approach to HPV Vaccination in School-Based and Non-School-Based Settings in Haiti

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bane,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

New issues came up from a second reviewer. Please see below.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded to all the reviewer comments. The manuscript describes a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions are drawn appropriately based on the data presented. All data underlying the findings described in the manuscript are fully available without restriction.

Reviewer #2: I have some major concerns.

I understood the study participants included patients with Kaposi sarcoma and healthy adolescent girls. This is not clear in the abstract , introduction and methodology.

In the Line No 219-221 authors state that Overall, the proportion of participants who were GHESKIO patients among those who completed the vaccination series was not quite statistically different from that of participants who have not been a patient at the clinic.

Article need more clarity.

Abstract

Objectives Line No 24-26 Specify the age of study participants

Results Line 34 The term "Patient" is confusing, As I understood the study included both patients as well as healthy adolecscents term patient to be replaced with vaccine recipients or vaccinees.

Instead of patient history-medical/surgical history of study participents will be appropriate.

Line No 72 GHESKIO -Is the vaccine introduced in only patients with Kaposi sarcoma. Mention other healthy participants.

Line 81 Abbreviation for PIH

Line 102 Methods and materials

Define PAtient /study participants

Line 178 whereas only around one fifth (21.4%) were pregnant at the time of

vaccination, all of whom received both doses of the vaccine. HPV vaccine is not administered in pregnant women.

Justify this.

Line 228 After adjusting for participant age, education, GHESKIO patient status-Authors have to define GHESKIO patient status

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 May 2021

Reviewer #1 Comments

Comment 1: I have some major concerns. I understood the study participants included patients with Kaposi sarcoma and healthy adolescent girls. This is not clear in the abstract , introduction and methodology.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment and the opportunity to make this clear in our manuscript. GHESKIO (the Haitian Study Group on Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections) is the community organization that conducted this study in Port-au-Prince. GHESKIO was founded in 1982 and was the world’s first institution dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS. Today, GHESKIO provided HIV testing and treatment, maternal-child health and nutrition services, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and many other social services.

In this study, the population included adolescent girls aged 9 to 14 who were willing to receive the vaccine and had parental consent (lines 97-98); the study population did not include individuals with Kaposi’s Sarcoma. In order to make this clear to readers, we have edited language in the manuscript from “GHESKIO patient” to “patient at a GHESKIO clinic” where applicable (Table 1, line 219, 222-223, 225, 228-230, 239, Table 2).

Comment 2: In the Line No 219-221 authors state that “Overall, the proportion of participants who were GHESKIO patients among those who completed the vaccination series was not quite statistically different from that of participants who have not been a patient at the clinic.” Article need more clarity.

Response 2: See Response 1. This statement refers to whether the participant was a former GHESKIO clinic patient or not. We have added a reference to Table 1 for clarity (lines 219-221).

Comment 3: Abstract Objectives Line No 24-26 Specify the age of study participants

Response 3: The abstract has been updated accordingly. See below (lines 24-26):

“Objectives. To assess the success of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program among adolescent girls aged 9-14 years in Haiti and to understand predictors of completion of a two-dose HPV vaccination series.”

Comment 4: Results Line 34 The term "Patient" is confusing, As I understood the study included both patients as well as healthy adolescents term patient to be replaced with vaccine recipients or vaccinees. Instead of patient history-medical/surgical history of study participants will be appropriate.

Response 4: See response 1. Additionally, we have updated the language to make clear that we are referring to whether the participant was a former patient at a GHESKIO clinic. See below (lines 34-35):

“Menarche (OR: 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14), if the participant was a prior patient at the GHESKIO clinics (OR: 2.17; 95% CI, 1.32-3.58), and participating in the school-based program (OR: 4.17; 95% CI, 2.14-8.12) were significantly associated with vaccination completion.”

Comment 5: Line No 72 GHESKIO -Is the vaccine introduced in only patients with Kaposi sarcoma. Mention other healthy participants.

Response 5: See response 1.

Comment 6: Line 81 Abbreviation for PIH

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for catching this. Lines 66-67 when the word is first used has been updated to include the acronym; see below:

“In 2009, a three-dose HPV vaccination pilot program was launched in Mirebalais, in central Haiti, supported by an initiative of Zanmi Lasante/Partners in Health (PIH).”

Comment 7: Line 102 Methods and materials, Define Patient /study participants

Response 7: See response 1.

Comment 8: Line 178 whereas only around one fifth (21.4%) were pregnant at the time of vaccination, all of whom received both doses of the vaccine. HPV vaccine is not administered in pregnant women. Justify this.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for catching this. That number was an error resulting from our internal review process and was in reference to participants from neighborhoods within 1km of the GHESKIO clinic. See below (line 179-180):

“More than half (58.8%) of the non-school cohort were from neighborhoods within 1 kilometer of the GHESKIO clinic, whereas only around one fifth (21.4%) from neighborhoods within 1 kilometer of the GHESKIO clinic in the school cohort.“

Comment 9: Line 228 After adjusting for participant age, education, GHESKIO patient status-Authors have to define GHESKIO patient status

Response 9: See response 1. Additionally, we have updated the language to make clear that we are referring to whether the participant was a former patient at a GHESKIO clinic (lines 229-233). See below:

“After adjusting for participant age, education, whether the participant was a GHESKIO patient or not, cohort (school or non-school), neighborhood distance from GHESKIO clinic, and guardian characteristics, girls who had experienced menarche had 1.87 times higher odds of completing the vaccination series than those who had not experienced menarche (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-3.14; P=0.019; Table 2).”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_HPV-vaccination-study_05.07.2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 May 2021

Success of Community Approach to HPV Vaccination in School-Based and Non-School-Based Settings in Haiti

PONE-D-20-36531R2

Dear Dr. Bane,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors have modified the research article and have addressed the concerns. Now the manuscript can be accepted

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Sabeena Sasidharan Pillai

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-36531.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-36531R2

Success of community approach to HPV vaccination in school-based and non-school-based settings in Haiti

Dear Dr. Bane:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Orvalho Augusto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE