Gender-neutral vs. gender-specific strategies in school-based HPV vaccination programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Frontiers in Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1460511

Nutthaporn Chandeying, Puttichart Khantee, Sirada Puetpaiboon, Therdpong Thongseiratch

{"title":"Gender-neutral vs. gender-specific strategies in school-based HPV vaccination programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Nutthaporn Chandeying, Puttichart Khantee, Sirada Puetpaiboon, Therdpong Thongseiratch","doi":"10.3389/fpubh.2025.1460511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether gender-neutral (GN) or gender-specific (GS) strategies more effectively enhanced knowledge, intention, and uptake of HPV vaccination among students in educational settings.Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library identified 17 randomized controlled trials encompassing 22,435 participants (14,665 females, 7,770 males). Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for knowledge and intention, and risk differences for vaccination uptake.Results: GN strategies achieved higher improvements in knowledge (SMD = 0.95) and intention (SMD = 0.59) compared with GS (SMD = 0.68 for knowledge, SMD = 0.14 for intention), and displayed a greater increase in uptake (5.7% versus 2.5% in GS), although this uptake difference was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity was more pronounced for knowledge outcomes and moderate for GS uptake results.Discussion: Despite GN approaches seemingly offering more robust enhancements in HPV-related knowledge and vaccination intention, additional research with robust designs and longer follow-up is required to determine whether GN interventions definitively outperform GS strategies in achieving statistically significant increases in actual vaccination uptake.","PeriodicalId":12548,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Public Health","volume":"13 ","pages":"1460511"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11876415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1460511","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether gender-neutral (GN) or gender-specific (GS) strategies more effectively enhanced knowledge, intention, and uptake of HPV vaccination among students in educational settings.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library identified 17 randomized controlled trials encompassing 22,435 participants (14,665 females, 7,770 males). Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for knowledge and intention, and risk differences for vaccination uptake.

Results: GN strategies achieved higher improvements in knowledge (SMD = 0.95) and intention (SMD = 0.59) compared with GS (SMD = 0.68 for knowledge, SMD = 0.14 for intention), and displayed a greater increase in uptake (5.7% versus 2.5% in GS), although this uptake difference was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity was more pronounced for knowledge outcomes and moderate for GS uptake results.

Discussion: Despite GN approaches seemingly offering more robust enhancements in HPV-related knowledge and vaccination intention, additional research with robust designs and longer follow-up is required to determine whether GN interventions definitively outperform GS strategies in achieving statistically significant increases in actual vaccination uptake.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Frontiers in Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

7.70%

发文量

4469

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Public Health is a multidisciplinary open-access journal which publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research and is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians, policy makers and the public worldwide. The journal aims at overcoming current fragmentation in research and publication, promoting consistency in pursuing relevant scientific themes, and supporting finding dissemination and translation into practice. Frontiers in Public Health is organized into Specialty Sections that cover different areas of research in the field. Please refer to the author guidelines for details on article types and the submission process.