Abstract

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). To examine the effect of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination education and logistical intervention on adolescent psychosocial outcomes. 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. The complex intervention consisted of an adolescent intervention to promote knowledge and psychosocial outcomes, shared decisional support tool, and logistical strategies. 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. 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. 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. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000404628.

Highlights

  • 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

  • There was a small difference in favor of the intervention group in reduced vaccination-related anxiety

  • Focus group data from 111 adolescents in 6 intervention and 5 control schools revealed more confidence and less anxiety with each vaccine dose. 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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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). This involvement, in turn, assists in the development of adolescent autonomy and vaccination literacy and can enhance the quality of health services.[1,2,3,4] Negative experiences may lead to vaccination-related fear and anxiety, refusal on vaccination day, or delays or avoidance of vaccination in the future.[5,6,7] Implementing fear and pain mitigation strategies is considered good immunization practice.[5,8,9] Hesitancy toward vaccination associated with needlerelated pain may result in suboptimal uptake.[5,10] Fear of needles, which may or may not be related to pain, is a common experience in adolescent vaccination programs, and syncope is a relatively common adverse event that is of special interest with regard to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, as with other adolescent vaccines.[8,11,12] The World Health Organization has developed the term immunization stress-related response to describe signs and symptoms that may arise around the time of immunization related to patient anxiety, but not to the vaccine product, a defect in its quality, or an error in its administration.[8,13]

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