Mothers' perceptions and attitudes about HPV vaccination initiation among 9- and 10-year-olds.

HPV vaccination has potential to prevent 90% of HPV-associated cancers. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends HPV vaccination for 11- and 12-year-olds, but vaccine initiation can start at age 9. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions about starting HPV vaccination at a younger age to inform future interventions that promote initiation at ages 9 and 10 years. This was part of a larger study about vaccine hesitancy among racially/ethnically diverse parents of adolescents in the Greater Newark Area of New Jersey. We thematically analyzed transcripts from 16 interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking mothers who had at least one child ≤ 10 years. Analyses focused on perceptions of HPV-related disease risk, attitudes toward HPV vaccination need, and vaccine confidence specifically for 9- and 10-year-olds. Few parents with young adolescents reported receiving vaccination recommendations, and only one reported series initiation before age 11. Mothers' hesitation about younger HPV vaccination initiation revolved around: 1) low perceived necessity among English-speaking mothers due to young adolescents not being sexually active, 2) concerns about potential side effects associated with vaccinating prepubescent adolescents, and 3) a desire for adolescents to be old enough to provide assent. Participants were not opposed to younger initiation but wanted and relied on pediatricians to inform them about vaccination for younger adolescents. These findings suggest mothers are willing to vaccinate at younger ages after clear provider recommendations. Equipping providers with evidence about vaccine safety and cancer prevention communication strategies may promote initiation and timely completion at younger ages.

Parents' Intentions, Concerns and Information Needs about COVID-19 Vaccination in New Jersey: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite local and nationwide public health efforts, adolescent COVID-19 vaccination uptake in the US remains low. This study explored parents' perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing hesitancy to inform future outreach and education campaigns. METHODS: We conducted two rounds of individual interviews via Zoom in May-September 2021 and January-February 2022, with parents of adolescents from the Greater Newark Area of New Jersey, a densely populated area with historically marginalized groups that had low COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Data collection and analysis was guided by the Increasing Vaccination Model and WHO Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix. Interview transcripts were double-coded and thematically analyzed in NVivo. RESULTS: We interviewed 22 parents (17 in English, 5 in Spanish). Nearly half (45%) were Black and 41% were Hispanic. Over half (54%) were born outside of the US. Most of the parents described that their adolescents had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. All but one parent had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite strong vaccination acceptance for themselves, parents remained hesitant about vaccinating their adolescents. They were mostly concerned about the safety and potential side effects due to the novelty of the vaccine. Parents sought information about the vaccines online, through healthcare providers and authorities, and at community spaces. Interpersonal communication exposed parents to misinformation, though some personal connections to severe COVID-19 illness motivated vaccination. Historical mistreatment by the healthcare system and politicization of the vaccine contributed to parents' mixed feelings about the trustworthiness of those involved with developing, promoting, and distributing COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multilevel influences on COVID-19 vaccine-specific hesitancy among a racially/ethnically diverse sample of parents with adolescents that can inform future vaccination interventions. To increase vaccine confidence, future COVID booster campaigns and other vaccination efforts should disseminate information through trusted healthcare providers in clinical and also utilize community settings by addressing specific safety concerns and promoting vaccine effectiveness.

Community-based health care for indigenous women in Mexico: a qualitative evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Indigenous women in Mexico represent a vulnerable population in which three kinds of discrimination converge (ethnicity, gender and class), having direct repercussions on health status. The discrimination and inequity in health care settings brought this population to the fore as a priority group for institutional action. The objective of this study was to evaluate the processes and performance of the "Casa de la Mujer Indígena", a community based project for culturally and linguistically appropriate service delivery for indigenous women. The evaluation summarizes perspectives from diverse stakeholders involved in the implementation of the model, including users, local authorities, and institutional representatives. METHODS: The study covered five Casas implementation sites located in four Mexican states. A qualitative process evaluation focused on systematically analyzing the Casas project processes and performance was conducted using archival information and semi-structured interviews. Sixty-two interviews were conducted, and grounded theory approach was applied for data analysis. RESULTS: Few similarities were observed between the proposed model of service delivery and its implementation in diverse locations, signaling discordant operating processes. Evidence gathered from Casas personnel highlighted their ability to detect obstetric emergencies and domestic violence cases, as well as contribute to the empowerment of women in the indigenous communities served by the project. These themes directly translated to increases in the reporting of abuse and referrals for obstetric emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: The model's cultural and linguistic competency, and contributions to increased referrals for obstetric emergencies and abuse are notable successes. The flexibility and community-based nature of the model has allowed it to be adapted to the particularities of diverse indigenous contexts. Local, culturally appropriate implementation has been facilitated by the fact that the Casas have been implemented with local leadership and local women have taken ownership. Users express overall satisfaction with service delivery, while providing constructive feedback for the improvement of existing Casas, as well as more cost-effective implementation of the model in new sites. Integration of user's input obtained from this process evaluation into future planning will undoubtedly increase buy-in. The Casas model is pertinent and viable to other contexts where indigenous women experience disparities in care.