ArticleBMC primary care2025
Co-designing a shared digital decision aid for HPV vaccination in French general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is responsible for the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world and persistent infection of oncogenic types is associated with an increased risk of cancers. This infection could be prevented by vaccination. However, in a time of vaccine hesitancy, the decision to get vaccinated or to have a child vaccinated is the result of a complex process and decision aids are tools that may be of help in this context.
objectiveThe aim of this article is to present the development of a shared decision aid for HPV vaccination in France, destined to be used during general practice consultations.
methodsIn order to develop the shared decision aid, we followed the steps recommended by the International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS), i.e. scoping and defining the objectives, assembling the steering group, designing (carrying out two focus groups and a narrative review of the literature) and testing in a alpha test phase (carrying out three focus groups and 11 individual interviews). The tool was co-constructed with adolescents, parents and general practitioners.
resultsWe created an online shared decision aid which included the definition of HPV, epidemiological data, the mode of contamination, the different locations of the disease, the development of cancer, the importance of Pap smears, the effectiveness of the vaccination as well as the possible side effects. The various focus groups as well as individual interviews made it possible to determine the values and expectations of patients and physicians thus improving the decision aid. This development also made it possible to confirm an existing need for this type of tool for both patients and physicians.
conclusionsWe have developed a shared decision aid that could help general practitioners communicate about HPV vaccination and get more patients vaccinated. The impact of its use during the consultation will be evaluated on criteria such as the resolution of the decision-making conflict and ultimately on the vaccination coverage, as part of the PrevHPV study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.