HPV vaccine uptake in a school-located vaccination program

Middleman, Amy B.; Won, Tiana; Auslander, Beth A.; Misra, Sanghamitra; Short, Mary B.

doi:10.1080/21645515.2016.1208326

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These high rates of coverage have produced population‐level reductions in HPV infections, and the sharpest declines in HPV‐associated outcomes have occurred in countries with school‐based vaccination delivery . Although access to HPV vaccination in the United States is nearly exclusively limited to the clinical setting, local pharmacist‐led HPV vaccination efforts and school‐located vaccination programs have been shown to be effective in this country and could help improve vaccine coverage rates if implemented more broadly.…”

Section: Infectious Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for the primary prevention of cancer: Targeting established, modifiable risk factors

Gapstur

Drope

Jacobs

et al. 2018

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 1.7 million people will be diagnosed with cancer, and more than 600,000 will die of the disease in 2018. The financial costs associated with cancer risk factors and cancer care are enormous. To substantially reduce both the number of individuals diagnosed with and dying from cancer and the costs associated with cancer each year in the United States, government and industry and the public health, medical, and scientific communities must work together to develop, invest in, and implement comprehensive cancer control goals and strategies at the national level and expand ongoing initiatives at the state and local levels. This report is the second in a series of articles in this journal that, together, describe trends in cancer rates and the scientific evidence on cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship to inform the identification of priorities for a comprehensive cancer control plan. Herein, we focus on existing evidence about established, modifiable risk factors for cancer, including prevalence estimates and the cancer burden due to each risk factor in the United States, and established primary prevention recommendations and interventions to reduce exposure to each risk factor.

show abstract

Section: Infectious Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for the primary prevention of cancer: Targeting established, modifiable risk factors

Gapstur

Drope

Jacobs

et al. 2018

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…touted as an important future part of the armamentarium to improve adolescent immunization rates in the United States. 1 Advantages of SLV include the ability to reach most adolescents, a group that does not access medical care optimally, in 1 location; the fact that adolescents do not need to miss school and parents do not need to miss work if vaccines are delivered at school; and the potential for decreasing disparities in immunization delivery if all adolescents have easy access to vaccine delivery. Notably, most evidence for the success of SLV in enhancing human papillomavirus (HPV) rates has come from SLV programs in other countries.…”

Section: School-located Vaccination (Slv) Has Beenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can School-Located Vaccination Have a Major Impact on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates in the United States?

Kempe

Allison

Daley

2018

Academic Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School-local vaccination (SLV) has been a highly effective method of increasing rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in many countries internationally in which vaccines are purchased by national, regional, or local public health authorities and offered free of charge within schools. However, the effectiveness of SLV for increasing HPV vaccination rates in the United States is likely to be substantially limited due to a number of identified barriers, the most significant of which is with the need to bill for vaccines among adolescents not covered under the Vaccines for Children Program. HPV vaccination within school-based health centers (SBHCs) has been much more effective than SLV, but SBHCs exist in only 2% of schools in the United States. The opportunity gap between the United States and other countries will remain unless reimbursement issues related to HPV delivery in schools can be addressed in a sustainable manner or SBHCs become much more common.

show abstract

“…42 School-located vaccination is resource intensive and generates substantial improvement in HPV vaccine initiation for 11-to 13-year-old girls and boys (13.0% [range: 2.0%-17.7%]) as well as likely increasing follow-through (4.0% [range: 0.0%-18%]). 41,43,44 QI Visits CDC funds state health departments to conduct QI visits with primary care clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children program. The CDC QI curriculum was originally called the Assessment, Feedback, Incentives eXchange program but was remodeled in 2019 as the Immunization Quality Improvement for Providers.…”

Section: School-located Vaccinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Increase HPV Vaccine Uptake

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: We sought to prioritize interventions for increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage based on cost-effectiveness from a US state perspective to inform decisions by policy makers. METHODS: We developed a dynamic simulation model of HPV transmission and progression scaled to a medium-sized US state (5 million individuals). We modeled outcomes over 50 years comparing no intervention to a one-year implementation of centralized reminder and recall for HPV vaccination, school-located HPV vaccination, or quality improvement (QI) visits to primary care clinics. We used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess a range of plausible outcomes associated with each intervention. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated relative to a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold; $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) . RESULTS: All interventions were cost-effective, relative to no intervention. QI visits had the lowest cost and cost per QALY gained ($1538 versus no intervention). Statewide implementation of centralized reminder and recall cost $28 289 per QALY gained versus QI visits. School-located vaccination had the highest cost but was cost-effective at $18 337 per QALY gained versus QI visits. Scaling to the US population, interventions could avert 3000 to 14 000 future HPV cancers. When varying intervention cost and impact over feasible ranges, interventions were typically preferred to no intervention, but cost-effectiveness varied between intervention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions for increasing HPV vaccine coverage were cost-effective and offered substantial health benefits. Policy makers seeking to increase HPV vaccination should, at minimum, dedicate additional funding for QI visits, which are consistently effective at low cost and may additionally consider more resource-intensive interventions (reminder and recall or school-located vaccination).

show abstract

HPV vaccine uptake in a school-located vaccination program

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

A blueprint for the primary prevention of cancer: Targeting established, modifiable risk factors

A blueprint for the primary prevention of cancer: Targeting established, modifiable risk factors

Can School-Located Vaccination Have a Major Impact on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates in the United States?

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Increase HPV Vaccine Uptake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About