ObjectiveTo examine factors associated with parents’ uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines for their children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Library, AIDSLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Ovid MEDLINE, Scholars Portal, Social Sciences Citation Index and Dissertation Abstracts International from inception through November 2017.MethodsWe included studies that sampled parents and assessed uptake of HPV vaccines for their children (≤18 years) and/or sociodemographics, knowledge, attitudes or other factors associated with uptake. Study risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis and conducted moderation analyses to examine variance in uptake by sex of child and parent.ResultsSeventy-nine studies on 840 838 parents across 15 countries were included. The pooled proportion of parents’ uptake of HPV vaccines for their children was 41.5% (range: 0.7%–92.8%), twofold higher for girls (46.5%) than for boys (20.3%). In the meta-analysis of 62 studies, physician recommendation (r=0.46 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.56)) had the greatest influence on parents’ uptake, followed by HPV vaccine safety concerns (r=−0.31 (95% CI −0.41 to −0.16)), routine child preventive check-up, past 12 months (r=0.22 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.33)) and parents’ belief in vaccines (r=0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.29)). Health insurance-covered HPV vaccination (r=0.16 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29)) and lower out-of-pocket cost (r=−0.15 (95% CI −0.22 to −0.07)) had significant effects on uptake. We found significant moderator effects for sex of child.ConclusionsFindings indicate suboptimal levels of HPV vaccine uptake, twofold lower among boys, that may be improved by increasing physician recommendations, addressing parental safety concerns and promoting parents’ positive beliefs about vaccines, in addition to expanding insurance coverage and reducing out-of-pocket costs. Limitations of this meta-analysis include the lack of intervention studies and high risk of bias in most studies reviewed. Further studies should disaggregate HPV vaccine uptake by sex of child and parent.

This paper qualitatively examines “privation of inclusion” at work in the lived experiences of racialized participants hired in publicly funded places of employment. Taking the position that the dualistic inclusion-exclusion paradigm fails to capture their lived realities with inclusive exclusions and exclusive inclusions, it presents privative inclusion as a third space, between inclusion and exclusion, for a more robust framework in understanding how racialized bodies were marked and targeted for differential treatment. The paper then outlines and discusses findings as key indicators of privative mechanisms that had undermined life chances by limiting career mobility of racialized participants of this study. It concludes by emphasizing the need for additional research in this area given the salience of racism at work as well as the demographic changes that Canada is currently experiencing.

Canada is touted as a diverse, tolerant, and multicultural country where the prevailing understanding is that racial injustices emanating from structural oppression are not widespread. Analysing lived experiences of racialized participants who worked in publicly funded places of employment in British Columbia (BC), this qualitative study offers a phenomenological exploration of a particular manifestation of racial discrimination: that of quarantine-like containment of mobility at work. Examining undue restrictions and mobility limitations imposed on participants, this article will use three metaphors—stranger for racialized individuals, body for workplaces, and cordon minoritaire as the process of containing the mobility of strangers within the body—to present and discuss findings on: 1) excessive targeted scrutiny; 2) wrongful seating arrangements; 3) cold and transactional interactions; and, 4) bad faith references. In this regard, cordon minoritaire is presented as a novel analytical framework to illustrate the ways in which racialized workers were cordoned off, with their professional freedoms and career mobilities restricted, in order to quarantine White ecosystems of employment. Consequently, cordon minoritaire machinations created perniciously unequal conditions that fundamentally and unjustly constrained participants into working under discriminatory conditions—depravities that are at odds with whimsical notions of Canada as tolerant, multicultural, and morally superior to its neighbour south of the border.

No abstract