Tempest in a teapot: A systematic review of HPV vaccination and risk compensation research
TL;DR: None of the studies of sexual behaviors and/or biological outcomes found evidence of riskier behaviors or higher rates of STIs after HPV vaccination, which should be reassuring to parents and health care providers.
Abstract: There has been some concern among parents and in the media that vaccinating children against human papillomavirus could be seen as giving children permission to engage in risky sexual behaviors (also known as sexual disinhibition). Several studies have found this concern to be unfounded but there have been no attempts to synthesize the relevant studies in order to assess if there is evidence of sexual disinhibition. The aim of this study was to synthesize recent literature examining sexual behaviors and biological outcomes (e.g., sexually transmitted infections) post-HPV vaccination. We reviewed literature from January 1, 2008-June 30, 2015 using PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase with the following search terms: [(sex behavior OR sex behavior OR sexual) AND (human papillomavirus OR HPV) AND (vaccines OR vaccine OR vaccination)] followed by a cited reference search. We included studies that examined biological outcomes and reported behaviors post-vaccination in both males and females. Studies were reviewed by title and abstract and relevant studies were examined as full-text articles. We identified 2,503 articles and 20 were eventually included in the review. None of the studies of sexual behaviors and/or biological outcomes found evidence of riskier behaviors or higher rates of STIs after HPV vaccination. Instead, the studies found that vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals were less likely to report vaginal intercourse without a condom (OR = 0.5; 95%CI = 0.4-0.6) and non-use of contraception (OR = 0.27; 95%CI = 0.15-0.48) and unvaccinated participants had higher rates of Chlamydia (OR = 2.3; 95%CI = 1.06-5.00). These results should be reassuring to parents and health care providers.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Abaluck et al. as discussed by the authors found that mask wearing averaged 13.3% in villages where no interventions took place but increased to 42.3%, while in-person interventions were introduced.
Abstract: Persuading people to mask Even in places where it is obligatory, people tend to optimistically overstate their compliance for mask wearing. How then can we persuade more of the population at large to act for the greater good? Abaluck et al . undertook a large, cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh involving hundreds of thousands of people (although mostly men) over a 2-month period. Colored masks of various construction were handed out free of charge, accompanied by a range of mask-wearing promotional activities inspired by marketing research. Using a grassroots network of volunteers to help conduct the study and gather data, the authors discovered that mask wearing averaged 13.3% in villages where no interventions took place but increased to 42.3% in villages where in-person interventions were introduced. Villages where in-person reinforcement of mask wearing occurred also showed a reduction in reporting COVID-like illness, particularly in high-risk individuals. —CA
135 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors trace the evolution of the intersection of science, politics, economics and gender norms during the original HPV vaccine approval, marketing era, and implementation, and propose a multilevel approach to normalizing HPV vaccines as an important aspect of overall health for both genders.
80 citations
TL;DR: Unfounded concerns about risk compensation threaten public health when they delay the introduction of protective measures such as wearing of face coverings, argue Theresa Marteau and colleagues.
Abstract: Unfounded concerns about risk compensation threaten public health when they delay the introduction of protective measures such as wearing of face coverings, argue Theresa Marteau and colleagues
69 citations
TL;DR: This article responds to one by Graham Martin and colleagues, who offered a critique of my previous publications on face coverings for the lay public in the Covid‐19 pandemic, and sets out some key findings from basic science, epidemiology, mathematical modelling, case studies, and natural experiments as the backdrop for a rebuttal of their narrowly framed objections.
Abstract: Background This article responds to one by Graham Martin and colleagues, who offered a critique of my previous publications on face coverings for the lay public in the Covid-19 pandemic. Their paper reflects criticisms that have been made of face coverings policies more generally. Method Narrative rebuttal. Results I address charges that my coauthors and I had misapplied the precautionary principle; drawn conclusions that were not supported by empirical research; and failed to take account of potential harms But before that, I remind my critics that the evidence on face coverings goes beyond the contested trials and observational studies they place centre stage. I set out some key findings from basic science, epidemiology, mathematical modelling, case studies, and natural experiments, and use this rich and diverse body of evidence as the backdrop for my rebuttal of their narrowly framed objections. I challenge my critics' apparent assumption that a particular kind of systematic review should be valorised over narrative and real-world evidence, since stories are crucial to both our scientific understanding and our moral imagination. Conclusion I conclude by thanking my academic adversaries for the intellectual sparring match, but exhort them to remember our professional accountability to a society in crisis. It is time to lay straw men to rest and embrace the full range of evidence in the context of the perilous threat the world is now facing.
53 citations
01 Jun 2017
TL;DR: This critical review traces the evolution of the intersection of science, politics, economics and gender norms during the original HPV vaccine approval, marketing era, and implementation and proposes a multilevel approach to normalizing HPV vaccines as an important aspect of overall health for both genders.
Abstract: Human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause a number of anogenital cancers (i.e., cervical, penile, anal, vaginal, vulvar) and genital warts. A decade ago, the HPV vaccine was approved, and has been shown to be a public health achievement that can reduce the morbidity and mortality for HPV-associated diseases. Yet, the mistaken over-identification of HPV as a female-specific disease has resulted in the feminization of HPV and HPV vaccines. In this critical review, we trace the evolution of the intersection of science, politics, economics and gender norms during the original HPV vaccine approval, marketing era, and implementation. Given the focus on cervical cancer screening, women were identified as bearing the burden of HPV infection and its related illnesses, and the group responsible for prevention. We also describe the consequences of the feminization of HPV, which has resulted primarily in reduced protection from HPV-related illnesses for males. We propose a multilevel approach to normalizing HPV vaccines as an important aspect of overall health for both genders. This process must engage multiple stakeholders, including providers, parents, patients, professional organizations, public health agencies, policymakers, researchers, and community-based organizations.
50 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
Book•
23 Sep 2019TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
21,235 citations
National Institutes of Health1, Saint Louis University2, University of California, Berkeley3, United States Environmental Protection Agency4, University of Oxford5, Louisiana State University6, Fudan University7, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research8, Queen Mary University of London9, University of Minnesota10, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health11, University of Buenos Aires12, Johns Hopkins University13, Ohio State University14, American Cancer Society15, University of Paris16, University of Turin17, University of Southern California18, Russian Academy19
1,761 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: These recommendations represent the first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006. This report summarizes the epidemiology of HPV and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccine, and provides recommendations for its use for vaccination among females aged 9-26 years in the United States. Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year. Although the majority of infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, persistent infection with oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer in women. HPV infection also is the cause of genital warts and is associated with other anogenital cancers. Cervical cancer rates have decreased in the United States because of widespread use of Papanicolaou testing, which can detect precancerous lesions of the cervix before they develop into cancer; nevertheless, during 2007, an estimated 11,100 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer. In certain countries where cervical cancer screening is not routine, cervical cancer is a common cancer in women. The licensed HPV vaccine is composed of the HPV L1 protein, the major capsid protein of HPV. Expression of the L1 protein in yeast using recombinant DNA technology produces noninfectious virus-like particles (VLP) that resemble HPV virions. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine is a mixture of four HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 combined with an aluminum adjuvant. Clinical trials indicate that the vaccine has high efficacy in preventing persistent HPV infection, cervical cancer precursor lesions, vaginal and vulvar cancer precursor lesions, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, or 18 among females who have not already been infected with the respective HPV type. No evidence exists of protection against disease caused by HPV types with which females are infected at the time of vaccination. However, females infected with one or more vaccine HPV types before vaccination would be protected against disease caused by the other vaccine HPV types. The vaccine is administered by intramuscular injection, and the recommended schedule is a 3-dose series with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first dose. The recommended age for vaccination of females is 11-12 years. Vaccine can be administered as young as age 9 years. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13--26 years who have not been previously vaccinated. Vaccination is not a substitute for routine cervical cancer screening, and vaccinated females should have cervical cancer screening as recommended.
1,545 citations