Abstract

BackgroundThis study is the first to examine associations between several area-based socioeconomic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among boys in the United States (U.S.).MethodsData from the 2012-2013 National Immunization Survey-Teen restricted-use data were analyzed to examine associations of HPV vaccination initiation (receipt of ≥1 dose) and series completion (receipt of three doses) among boys aged 13-17 years (N = 19,518) with several individual-level and ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) census measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of HPV vaccination initiation and series completion separately.ResultsIn 2012-2013 approximately 27.9% (95% CI 26.6%-29.2%) of boys initiated and 10.38% (95% CI 9.48%-11.29%) completed the HPV vaccine series. Area-based poverty was not statistically significantly associated with HPV vaccination initiation. It was, however, associated with series completion, with boys living in high-poverty areas (≥20% of residents living below poverty) having higher odds of completing the series (AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48) than boys in low-poverty areas (0-4.99%). Interactions between race/ethnicity and ZIP code-level poverty indicated that Hispanic boys living in high-poverty areas had a statistically significantly higher odds of HPV vaccine initiation (AOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03-1.97) and series completion (AOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.32) than Hispanic boys in low-poverty areas. Non-Hispanic Black boys in high poverty areas had higher odds of initiation (AOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.33-3.75) and completion (AOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.06-6.44) than non-Hispanic Black boys in low-poverty areas. Rural/urban residence and population density were also significant factors, with boys from urban or densely populated areas having higher odds of initiation and completion compared to boys living in non-urban, less densely populated areas.ConclusionHigher HPV vaccination coverage in urban areas and among racial/ethnic minorities in areas with high poverty may be attributable to factors such as vaccine acceptance, health-care practices, and their access to HPV vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines to uninsured and under-insured children. Given the low HPV vaccination rates among boys in the U.S., these results provide important evidence to inform public health interventions to increase HPV vaccination.

Highlights

  • This study is the first to examine associations between several area-based socioeconomic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among boys in the United States (U.S.)

  • Incidence rates of HPV-associated cancers overall are highest among men living in census tracts with high poverty levels (>20%)(≥20% of residents living below poverty) compared to men living in census tracts with low poverty levels (

  • Boys from households with incomes below the poverty threshold had higher odds of HPV vaccine initiation compared to households with incomes above the poverty threshold (AOR 1.35, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.17-1.55)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study is the first to examine associations between several area-based socioeconomic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among boys in the United States (U.S.). In the United States (U.S.), approximately 39,000 HPVassociated cancers among women and men are diagnosed each year, many of which are preventable with the current HPV vaccine. Over the past several years rates of HPV-associated cancers among men have been increasing more rapidly than rates of HPV-associated cancers among women [1, 3, 4]. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in HPVassociated cancers have been documented in the U.S Recent data indicate Hispanic men have higher rates of penile cancer compared to non-Hispanic (NH) men. White and Black men have higher rates of oropharyngeal and anal cancers compared to men of other races [1, 5]. Incidence rates of HPV-associated cancers overall are highest among men living in census tracts with high poverty levels (>20%)(≥20% of residents living below poverty) compared to men living in census tracts with low poverty levels (

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call