Fathers’ participation in the HPV vaccination decision-making process doesn’t increase parents’ intention to make daughters get the vaccine

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study design. 1499 Japanese mothers were randomized into three Group: A, B and C. To mothers of Group A, we provided both an educational leaflet regarding HPV vaccination and a leaflet which recommended them to talk with their husbands about their daughter’s vaccination. To mothers in Group B, only the educational leaflet for HPV vaccination was provided. To Group C’s mothers, no leaflets were sent.

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.

			Group A		Group B		Group C
			Educational leaflet and a letter regarding father		Educational leaflet only		Control group
Aver. age (range)			43.4	(31–57)	43.2	(30–59)	44.1	(31–59)	p = .024*
			n	%	n	%	n	%
Income	under 2 million yen		14	(2.7)	13	(2.5)	20	(4.4)	p = .893
	2-4 million yen		77	(14.8)	79	(15)	61	(13.6)
	4-6 million yen		145	(27.8)	140	(26.5)	102	(22.7)
	6-8 million yen		94	(18)	108	(20.5)	76	(16.9)
	8-10 million yen		59	(11.3)	63	(11.9)	40	(8.9)
	over 10 million yen		54	(10.4)	54	(10.2)	34	(7.6)
	no answer		78	(15)	71	(13.4)	117	(26)
	total		521	(100)	528	(100)	450	(100)
Academic background
	middle school, high school		186	(35.7)	165	(31.3)	175	(38.9)	p = .005519*
	junior or technical college		204	(39.2)	220	(41.7)	191	(42.4)
	university		126	(24.2)	141	(26.7)	81	(18)
	graduate school		4	(0.8)	2	(0.4)	3	(0.7)
	other		1	(0.2)	0	(0)	0	(0)
	total		521	(100)	528	(100)	450	(100)
Occupation
	Civil servant		9	(2)	4	(1)	3	(1)	p = .845631
	Manager		0	(0)	2	(0)	1	(0)
	Employee (Office worker)		28	(5.3)	40	(8)	16	(4)
	Employee (Technical expert)		5	(0.9)	3	(1)	2	(0)
	Employee (Other)		18	(3.5)	15	(3)	19	(4)
	Self employed		15	(2.9)	10	(2)	10	(2)
	Freelance		2	(0.4)	4	(1)	1	(0)
	Housewife		231	(44.3)	221	(42)	223	(50)
	Part-time		207	(39.7)	224	(42)	163	(36)
	Others		6	(1.2)	4	(1)	9	(2)
	Unemployed		0	0	1	(0)	3	(1)
	total		521	(100)	528	(100)	450	(100)

*Different (P < .05) between Group B and Group C.

Table 2. Intention to make their daughters receive the HPV vaccine under the hypothetical restart of a governmental recommendation.

	Group A		Group B		Group C
	Educational leaflet and a letter regarding father		Educational leaflet only		Control
Intention to:	n (%)	A vs B	n (%)	B vs C	n (%)	A vs C
inoculate	108 (20.7)	0.9126	114 (21.6)	p < 0.0001*	37 (8.2)	p < 0.0001*
won‘t inoculate	159 (30.5)		163 (30.9)		233 (51.8)
unsure	254 (48.8)		251 (47.5)		180 (40.0)
total	521 (100)		528 (100)		450 (100)

*: Statistically significant

Table 3. Persons with whom the mothers discussed their daughters’ HPV vaccination.

	Group A		Group B		Group C
	Educational leaflet and a letter regarding father		Educational leaflet only		Control
With whom mother talked:	n (%)	A vs B	n (%)	B vs C	n (%)	A vs C
husband	417 (80.0)	p < 0.0001*	194 (36.7)	p < 0.0001*	92 (20.4)	p < 0.0001*
only daughter	48 (9.2)		82 (15.5)		38 (84.4)
nobody	56 (10.7)		252 (47.7)		320 (71.1)
total	521 (100)		528 (100)		450 (100)

*: Statistically significant.

Table 4. Changes in intention of the mothers to make their daughter receive vaccination, after a discussion about the HPV vaccine with the fathers.

	Group A		Group B		Group C
	Educational leaflet and a letter regarding father		Educational leaflet only		Control
Intention to inoculate was:	n (%)	A vs B	n (%)	B vs C	n (%)	A vs C
changed	55 (10.5)	p = 0.0115*	32 (6)	p = 0.0027*	9 (2)	p <0.0001*
not changed, unsure	466 (89.5)		496 (94)		441 (98)
total	521 (100)		528 (100)		450 (100)

*: Statistically significant

Table 5. Points the mothers thought were important for making decisions about their daughters’ HPV vaccination.

	Group A			Group B			Group C
	Educational leaflet and a letter regarding father			Educational leaflet only			Control
What the mothers thought was important for vaccination decision making:	n	(%)	A vs B	n	(%)	B vs C	n	(%)	A vs C
The possibility of being affected with cervical cancer	404	(77.5)*c	p = .9668	411	(77.8)*c	p < .0001	257	(57.1)	p < .0001
The consequences of cervical cancer	429	(82.3)*c	p = .1256	454	(86)*c	p < .0001	280	(62.2)	p < .0001
The effects of the HPV vaccine	390	(74.9)*c	p = .7895	400	(75.8)*c	p = .0001	288	(64)	p = .0003
The cost of the HPV vaccine	349	(67)*c	p = .4175	367	(69.5)*c	p < .0001	214	(47.6)	p < .0001
The information about adverse effects after HPV vaccination	476	(91.4)*c	p = .0328	501	(94.9)*c	p < .0001	377	(83.8)	p = .0005
The current status of the girls who were reported to have suffured from possible adverse effects of the HPV vaccine	474	(91)*c	p = .0506	498	(94.3)*c	p < .0001	388	(86.2)	p = .0251
The treatment and compensation for adverse events after HPV vaccination	457	(87.7)*c	p = .7143	468	(88.6)*c	p = .0002	359	(79.8)	p = .0010
The intention of their daughter to receive the HPV vaccine	382	(73.3)	p = .8970	390	(74)	p = .0433	305	(67.8)	p = .0684
Other girls’ HPV vaccination status	319	(61.2)	p = .31	340	(64.4)	p = .1189	267	(59.3)	p = .5918
The opinion of the father	365	(70.1)*bc	p < .0001	299	(56.6)*c	p = .0037	212	(47.1)	p < .0001
The opinion of other family members	332	(63.7)*c	p = .0843	308	(58.3)*c	p < .0001	209	(46.4)	p < .0001
The governmental recommendation for the vaccine	218	(41.8)*c	p = .7068	228	(43.2)*c	p = .0012	148	(32.9)	p = .0050
A safety assessment of the HPV vaccine by specialists	350	(67.2)*c	p = .3800	369	(69.9)*c	p < .0001	254	(56.4)	p = .0007

*c: statistically significant in comparison to Group C.

*bc: statistically significant in comparison to Groups B and C.