Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31370886›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2019

Communication around HPV vaccination for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping overview of systematic reviews.

Hakan Safaralilo Foss, Ann Oldervoll, Atle Fretheim, Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Developing Community-Informed Communication Resources to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Uptake in Tonga.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Appraisal of umbrella reviews on vaccines.Communications medicine · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hakan Safaralilo FossFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ann OldervollDivision of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Atle FretheimFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Claire GlentonDivision of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Simon LewinDivision of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. simon.lewin@fhi.no.ORCID 0000-0001-7521-9515

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes cervical cancer. More than 80% of those diagnosed with cervical cancer live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The World Health Organization recommends vaccination as a public health measure against cervical cancer. Communication interventions are able to change how people think about vaccination and are thus instrumental in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Our aim was to provide a broad scoping overview of the available evidence on communication with adolescents, parents, and other stakeholders around HPV vaccination for adolescents, with a specific focus on LMICs.

methodsWe conducted a systematic scoping overview of systematic reviews addressing a range of questions regarding communication around HPV vaccination. We considered reviews published between 2007 and 2018 focusing on communication around HPV vaccination and that searched for qualitative or quantitative studies for inclusion. We searched the Epistemonikos database which includes reviews from multiple electronic databases. Two overview authors screened titles and abstracts and examined potentially eligible reviews in full text. Data extraction was performed by one overview author and verified by a second. We assessed the reliability of the included reviews using an adapted version of AMSTAR 2.

resultsWe included twelve reviews in our overview. Four reviews assessed the effectiveness of communication interventions. These interventions intended to inform or educate about HPV and HPV vaccination, such as videos and fact sheets, or to remind or recall, such as text message reminders. Eight reviews assessed factors associated with HPV vaccination uptake, including communication-related factors such as whether the vaccine was recommended by a physician and people's knowledge regarding the vaccine. Nine reviews searched for studies from LMICs, but most found only a small number of studies from these countries.

conclusionsThe small number of studies identified from LMICs is of concern as these countries face the largest burden of disease related to HPV. This scoping overview also found and excluded a number of reviews because of important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for future reviews to use appropriate methods. The overview indicates areas in which further primary studies are needed on HPV vaccination communication in LMICs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/agzb4/.

Indexed as

CommunicationDelivery of Health CarePapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesParentsVaccinationAdolescentDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus VaccinesAdolescentsCommunicationHPVHuman papillomavirusInterventionLow- and middle-income countriesLow-income countriesMiddle-income countriesSystematic scoping overview of systematic reviewsVaccine

Identifiers

PMID31370886
PMCPMC6670236

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.