HPV Vaccination Adherence in Working-Age Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection in the world. HPV vaccination adherence rates in men are generally lower than in women. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess adherence to HPV vaccination in young working-age males (18–30 years old). Methods: A systematic review was performed using three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: After duplicate removal, the initial search resulted in 478 eligible papers. With the exclusion of 425 papers after screening the abstracts, full texts of 53 articles were reviewed. Subsequently, 45 were excluded. Among the eight studies included, four (50%) examined the vaccination adherence in young adults through data registered in nationwide insurance or private companies’ databases, three (37.5%) in young adults in different settings through data collected from surveys and questionnaires, and one (12.5%) an HPV vaccination campaign in a family medicine residency practice. Conclusion: Adherence to HPV vaccination in men of working age (18–30 years) does not appear to be adequate (pooled prevalence 11%). In order to achieve a higher level of compliance, it is important to place an emphasis on vaccination campaigns in schools as well as in the workplace, after consultation with and approval from local, regional, and federal public health agencies.

Related collections

Most cited references 76

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 13824 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)

Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.

0 comments Cited 4344 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and synthetic analysis.

Catherine de Martel, Jacques Ferlay, Silvia Franceschi … (2012)

Infections with certain viruses, bacteria, and parasites have been identified as strong risk factors for specific cancers. An update of their respective contribution to the global burden of cancer is warranted. We considered infectious agents classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We calculated their population attributable fraction worldwide and in eight geographical regions, using statistics on estimated cancer incidence in 2008. When associations were very strong, calculations were based on the prevalence of infection in cancer cases rather than in the general population. Estimates of infection prevalence and relative risk were extracted from published data. Of the 12·7 million new cancer cases that occurred in 2008, the population attributable fraction (PAF) for infectious agents was 16·1%, meaning that around 2 million new cancer cases were attributable to infections. This fraction was higher in less developed countries (22·9%) than in more developed countries (7·4%), and varied from 3·3% in Australia and New Zealand to 32·7% in sub-Saharan Africa. Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B and C viruses, and human papillomaviruses were responsible for 1·9 million cases, mainly gastric, liver, and cervix uteri cancers. In women, cervix uteri cancer accounted for about half of the infection-related burden of cancer; in men, liver and gastric cancers accounted for more than 80%. Around 30% of infection-attributable cases occur in people younger than 50 years. Around 2 million cancer cases each year are caused by infectious agents. Application of existing public health methods for infection prevention, such as vaccination, safer injection practice, or antimicrobial treatments, could have a substantial effect on the future burden of cancer worldwide. Fondation Innovations en Infectiologie (FINOVI) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.