Does the number of doses matter? A qualitative study of HPV vaccination acceptability nested in a dose reduction trial in Tanzania.
Acceptability
Dose reduction
HPV vaccination
Qualitative
Randomisation
Trial participation
Journal
Tumour virus research
ISSN: 2666-6790
Titre abrégé: Tumour Virus Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101775149
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
revised:
30
04
2021
accepted:
18
05
2021
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
29
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The multi-dose regimen is a known barrier to successful human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Emerging evidence suggests that one vaccine dose could protect against HPV. While there are clear advantages to a single dose schedule, beliefs about vaccine dosage in low and middle income countries (LMICs) are poorly understood. We investigated acceptability of dose-reduction among girls, and parents/guardians of girls, randomised to receive one, two or three doses in an HPV vaccine dose-reduction and immunobridging study (DoRIS trial) in Tanzania. Semi-structured interviews with girls (n = 19), and parents/guardians of girls (n = 18), enrolled in the study and completing their vaccine course. Most participants said they entrusted decisions about the number of HPV vaccine doses to experts. Random allocation to the different dose groups did not feature highly in the decision to participate in the trial. Given a hypothetical choice, girls generally said they would prefer fewer doses in order to avoid the pain of injections. Parental views were mixed, with most wanting whichever dose was most efficacious. Nonetheless, a few parents equated a higher number of doses with greater protection. Vaccine trials and programmes will need to employ careful messaging to explain that one dose offers sufficient protection against HPV should emerging evidence from ongoing dose-reduction clinical trials support this.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The multi-dose regimen is a known barrier to successful human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Emerging evidence suggests that one vaccine dose could protect against HPV. While there are clear advantages to a single dose schedule, beliefs about vaccine dosage in low and middle income countries (LMICs) are poorly understood. We investigated acceptability of dose-reduction among girls, and parents/guardians of girls, randomised to receive one, two or three doses in an HPV vaccine dose-reduction and immunobridging study (DoRIS trial) in Tanzania.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews with girls (n = 19), and parents/guardians of girls (n = 18), enrolled in the study and completing their vaccine course.
RESULTS
Most participants said they entrusted decisions about the number of HPV vaccine doses to experts. Random allocation to the different dose groups did not feature highly in the decision to participate in the trial. Given a hypothetical choice, girls generally said they would prefer fewer doses in order to avoid the pain of injections. Parental views were mixed, with most wanting whichever dose was most efficacious. Nonetheless, a few parents equated a higher number of doses with greater protection.
CONCLUSION
Vaccine trials and programmes will need to employ careful messaging to explain that one dose offers sufficient protection against HPV should emerging evidence from ongoing dose-reduction clinical trials support this.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34051389
pii: S2666-6790(21)00007-0
doi: 10.1016/j.tvr.2021.200217
pmc: PMC8233223
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Papillomavirus Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
200217Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : SPHSU11
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N006135/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : SPHSU18
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : SPHSU18
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_1,201,711
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12017/11
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00022/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.