HPV Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake: A Conceptual Analysis Using Rodgers' Evolutionary Approach.

Abstract

This study examines the factors contributing to HPV vaccine hesitancy using Rodgers's evolutionary concept analysis, focusing on the impact of uncertainties about the vaccine on HPV-related diseases despite its availability. Rodgers's evolutionary concept analysis was applied to explore factors leading to HPV vaccine hesitancy. The analysis included studies published in English over the past 5 years. Exclusions were studies older than 5 years, non-English publications, and those focusing on other vaccines. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using key databases such as PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Relevant keywords included 'HPV' and 'vaccine hesitancy' to ensure thoroughness. Studies were selected based on their relevance to HPV vaccine hesitancy. Factors contributing to hesitancy were analysed, focusing on antecedents, attributes, and consequences. The analysis identified key antecedents to HPV vaccine hesitancy, including false cultural beliefs, educational level, knowledge, and vaccine availability. Additional factors were insurance/income, perceived risk, and decision-making processes. Key attributes impacting hesitancy included media coverage, environmental and community influences, social factors, trust in healthcare systems, efficacy rates, and safety concerns. The consequences of hesitancy were reduced vaccine uptake, increased HPV-related diseases, and the spread of misinformation. The study highlights the complex interplay of factors contributing to HPV vaccine hesitancy. Understanding these factors is crucial for addressing the challenges posed by vaccine hesitancy and developing effective interventions. Insights from this analysis can guide public health strategies aimed at improving vaccine uptake and reducing HPV-related diseases. Targeted interventions can address misinformation and enhance trust in vaccines, ultimately leading to better public health outcomes. This concept analysis was conducted without the involvement of patients, service users, caregivers, or members of the public.