Parental Attitudes Toward Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Evaluation of an Educational Intervention, 2008

Abstract

The authors' objectives were to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine educational materials and to determine whether parents who received those materials had improved attitudes about the vaccine. Pretests were sent to 411 parents of girls 11–18 years of age who had not yet received the HPV vaccine. The authors then randomly assigned 270 respondents to an intervention (educational flyer and posttest) or comparison (posttest only) group. The authors conducted a mixed-method analysis of intervention group feedback on improving the flyer and used paired t tests and analysis of covariance to describe within- and between-group attitude changes. The overall posttest response rate was 76%. Among intervention group respondents (n = 131), 88% had a positive impression of the flyer, and 43% reported that it made them more likely to vaccinate their daughters with HPV vaccine in the future. Parents who received the flyer also showed a statistically significant increase in mean attitude scores regarding perceived HPV vaccine safety and access to HPV vaccine information; mean scores also increased among the comparison group, but the changes were not statistically significant. Educational materials improved HPV vaccine knowledge and attitudes among parents and might have helped motivate some parents to have their daughters vaccinated.

Acknowledgments

This article is not subject to US copyright law.

The authors thank John Stevenson of the Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, for his advice on statistical methods.

Notes

¹For more information, visit http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Spec-grps/preteens-adol/07gallery/default.htm

²To see the flyer, visit http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Spec-grps/preteens-adol/07gallery/flyers.htm

*Percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100.

**Statistically significant difference (p < .05) between intervention and comparison groups using chi-square test.

***Category was collapsed because of small cell sizes. Between both groups, non-White includes self-reported race/ethnicity as follows: Black/African American (n = 18), Asian (n = 3), Hispanic (n = 21), or other/not specified (n = 5).

*Percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100.

*All statements were asked on an 11-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).

**Statistically significant within-group difference (p < .05) between pretest and posttest mean using paired t tests.

***Statistically significant difference (p = .03) between intervention and comparison group at posttest using analysis of covariance to adjust for pretest differences.

*All statements were asked on an 11-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). No/negative influence group is combined as follows: no influence = 68, negative influence = 2, missing = 5.

**Statistically significant within-group difference (p < .05) between pre- and posttest mean using paired t tests.

***Statistically significant difference (p < .01) between intervention and comparison group at posttest using analysis of covariance to adjust for pretest differences.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.