Kaul Sapna, Do Thuy Quynh N, Hsu Enshuo, Schmeler Kathleen M, Montealegre Jane R, Rodriguez Ana M
Department of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA.
Office of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA.
Papillomavirus Res. 2019 Dec;8:100189. doi: 10.1016/j.pvr.2019.100189. Epub 2019 Oct 22.
Compare the effectiveness of community-based HPV-related education and onsite school-based vaccination versus community-based education only for increasing HPV vaccine uptake in a rural, medically underserved area.
Our cohort included 2307 Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District (RGCISD) middle school students from 3 schools enrolled in August 2016 and followed until April 2018. Using a quasi-experimental design, this study implemented an onsite school-based vaccination program and physician-led education on HPV and HPV vaccines for parents/guardians, school nurses/staff, and pediatric/family providers in the surrounding community (15-mile radius of RGCCISD) at 1 middle school ("intervention school"), and education-only for the remaining 2 schools ("comparison schools"). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HPV-related educational materials supplemented the education. HPV vaccine status was obtained from school immunization records and the project's contracted vaccine vendor. HPV vaccine initiation and completion rates were compared pre and post intervention and between the intervention and comparison schools. Logistic regression was used to compare the odds of newly initiating/completing vaccination between the intervention and comparison schools.
At baseline, the intervention school had lower HPV vaccine initiation and completion rates than the comparison schools (20.00% and 8.70% vs 28.97% and 14.56%). Post intervention, the intervention school had higher initiation and completion rates than the comparison schools (53.67% and 28.36% vs 41.56% and 20.53%). Students from the intervention school were over 3.6-times more likely to newly initiate/complete the HPV vaccinations than students from the comparison schools.
The school with on-site vaccination events and community-based education had a higher adolescent HPV vaccination rate compared to schools that received community-based education only.
比较在农村医疗服务不足地区,基于社区的HPV相关教育与校内现场疫苗接种相结合的方式与仅进行基于社区的教育相比,在提高HPV疫苗接种率方面的效果。
我们的队列包括2307名来自里奥格兰德城联合独立学区(RGCISD)3所学校的中学生,这些学生于2016年8月入学,随访至2018年4月。本研究采用准实验设计,在1所中学(“干预学校”)实施了校内现场疫苗接种计划,并由医生为周边社区(RGCISD半径15英里范围内)的家长/监护人、学校护士/工作人员以及儿科/家庭医疗服务提供者开展关于HPV和HPV疫苗的教育,而其余2所学校(“对照学校”)仅接受教育。疾病控制与预防中心的HPV相关教育材料辅助了此次教育。HPV疫苗接种状态从学校免疫记录和项目签约的疫苗供应商处获取。比较干预前后以及干预学校与对照学校之间的HPV疫苗起始接种率和全程接种率。使用逻辑回归比较干预学校与对照学校新开始/完成接种疫苗的几率。
基线时,干预学校的HPV疫苗起始接种率和全程接种率低于对照学校(分别为20.00%和8.70%,对比28.97%和14.56%)。干预后,干预学校的起始接种率和全程接种率高于对照学校(分别为53.67%和28.36%,对比41.56%和20.53%)。干预学校的学生新开始/完成HPV疫苗接种的可能性是对照学校学生的3.6倍多。
与仅接受基于社区教育的学校相比,开展现场疫苗接种活动并进行社区教育的学校青少年HPV疫苗接种率更高。