Browsing by Author "Brotherton, Julia M.L."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of a School-Based Educational Intervention About the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine on Psychosocial Outcomes Among Adolescents: Analysis of Secondary Outcomes of a Cluster Randomized Trial
    (American Medical Association, 2021-11-01) Davies, Cristyn; Marshall, Helen S.; Zimet, Gregory; McCaffery, Kirsten; Brotherton, Julia M.L.; Kang, Melissa; Garland, Suzanne; Kaldor, John; McGeechan, Kevin; Skinner, S. Rachel; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Importance: Delivery of vaccination to adolescents via a school-based program provides an opportunity to promote their involvement in health decision-making, service provision, and self-efficacy (belief in one's ability to perform a certain behavior). Objective: To examine the effect of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination education and logistical intervention on adolescent psychosocial outcomes. Design, setting, and participants: In this cluster randomized trial and process and qualitative evaluation, adolescents aged 12 to 13 years (first year of high school) were recruited at high schools in Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA) in 2013 and 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2016 to December 2020. Interventions: The complex intervention consisted of an adolescent intervention to promote knowledge and psychosocial outcomes, shared decisional support tool, and logistical strategies. Main outcomes and measures: Prespecified secondary outcomes were assessed. The HPV Adolescent Vaccination Intervention Questionnaire (HAVIQ) was used to measure changes in adolescent knowledge (6-item subscale), fear and anxiety (6-item subscale), self-efficacy (5-item subscale), and decision-making (8-item subscale). The hypothesis was that the intervention would improve adolescent involvement in vaccine decision-making (measured before dose 1 only), improve vaccine-related self-efficacy, and reduce vaccine-related fear and anxiety (measured before doses 1, 2, and 3). Mean (SD) scores for each subscale were compared between intervention and control students. In the process evaluation, focus groups were conducted. Analyses of the HAVIQ data were conducted from 2016 to 2020. Qualitative analyses of the focus groups were undertaken from 2017 to 2020. Results: The trial included 40 schools (21 intervention and 19 control) across sectors with 6967 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 13.70 [0.45] years). There were 3805 students (1689 girls and 2116 boys) in the intervention group and 3162 students (1471 girls and 1691 boys) in the control group. The overall response rate for the HAVIQ was 55%. In WA, where parental consent was required, the response rate was 35% (1676 of 4751 students); in SA, where parental consent was not required, it was 97% (2166 of 2216 students). The mean (SD) score for decision-making in the intervention group before dose 1 was 3.50 (0.42) of 5 points and 3.40 (0.40) in the control group, a small but significant difference of 0.11 point (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16 point; P < .001). There was a small difference in favor of the intervention group in reduced vaccination-related anxiety (pre-dose 1 difference, -0.11 point [95% CI, -0.19 to -0.02 point]; pre-dose 2 difference, -0.18 point [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10 point]; pre-dose 3 difference, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.24 to -0.11]) and increased vaccination self-efficacy (pre-dose 1 difference, 4.0 points; [95% CI, 1.0 to 7.0 points]; pre-dose 2 difference, 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.0 to 6.0 points]; pre-dose 3 difference, 3.0 points [95% CI, 1.0 to 5.0 points]). Focus group data from 111 adolescents in 6 intervention and 5 control schools revealed more confidence and less anxiety with each vaccine dose. Conclusions and relevance: In this cluster randomized trial, there was a small difference in adolescent decisional involvement and vaccine-related confidence and reduced vaccination-related fear and anxiety that was maintained throughout the vaccine course in the intervention vs control groups. Guidelines for vaccination at school should incorporate advice regarding how this outcome can be achieved.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Elsevier, 2015-05) Drolet, Mélanie; Bénard, Élodie; Boily, Marie-Claude; Ali, Hammad; Baandrup, Louise; Beddows, Simon; Brisson, Jacques; Brotherton, Julia M.L.; Cummings, Teresa; Donovan, Basil; Fairley, Christopher K.; Flagg, Elaine W.; Johnson, Anne M.; Kahn, Jessica A.; Kavanagh, Kimberley; Kjaer, Susanne K.; Kliewer, Erich V.; Lemieux-Mellouki, Philippe; Markowitz, Lauri; Mboup, Aminata; Mesher, David; Niccolai, Linda; Oliphant, Jeannie; Pollock, Kevin G.; Soldan, Kate; Sonnenberg, Pam; Tabrizi, Sepehr N.; Tanton, Clare; Brisson, Marc; Department of Pediatrics, IU School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes were first implemented in several countries worldwide in 2007. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the population-level consequences and herd effects after female HPV vaccination programmes, to verify whether or not the high efficacy reported in randomised controlled clinical trials are materialising in real-world situations. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases (between Jan 1, 2007 and Feb 28, 2014) and conference abstracts for time-trend studies that analysed changes, between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods, in the incidence or prevalence of at least one HPV-related endpoint: HPV infection, anogenital warts, and high-grade cervical lesions. We used random-effects models to derive pooled relative risk (RR) estimates. We stratified all analyses by age and sex. We did subgroup analyses by comparing studies according to vaccine type, vaccination coverage, and years since implementation of the vaccination programme. We assessed heterogeneity across studies using I(2) and χ(2) statistics and we did trends analysis to examine the dose-response association between HPV vaccination coverage and each study effect measure. FINDINGS: We identified 20 eligible studies, which were all undertaken in nine high-income countries and represent more than 140 million person-years of follow-up. In countries with female vaccination coverage of at least 50%, HPV type 16 and 18 infections decreased significantly between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods by 68% (RR 0·32, 95% CI 0·19-0·52) and anogenital warts decreased significantly by 61% (0·39, 0·22-0·71) in girls 13-19 years of age. Significant reductions were also recorded in HPV types 31, 33, and 45 in this age group of girls (RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·54-0·96), which suggests cross-protection. Additionally, significant reductions in anogenital warts were also reported in boys younger than 20 years of age (0·66 [95% CI 0·47-0·91]) and in women 20-39 years of age (0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·89]), which suggests herd effects. In countries with female vaccination coverage lower than 50%, significant reductions in HPV types 16 and 18 infection (RR 0·50, 95% CI 0·34-0·74]) and in anogenital warts (0·86 [95% CI 0·79-0·94]) occurred in girls younger than 20 years of age, with no indication of cross-protection or herd effects. INTERPRETATION: Our results are promising for the long-term population-level effects of HPV vaccination programmes. However, continued monitoring is essential to identify any signals of potential waning efficacy or type-replacement. FUNDING: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.