Methodological Approaches for Incorporating Marginalized Populations into HPV Vaccine Modeling: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-15 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251325509
Jennifer C Spencer, Juan Yanguela, Lisa P Spees, Olufeyisayo O Odebunmi, Anna A Ilyasova, Caitlin B Biddell, Kristen Hassmiller Lich, Sarah D Mills, Colleen R Higgins, Sachiko Ozawa, Stephanie B Wheeler
{"title":"Methodological Approaches for Incorporating Marginalized Populations into HPV Vaccine Modeling: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jennifer C Spencer, Juan Yanguela, Lisa P Spees, Olufeyisayo O Odebunmi, Anna A Ilyasova, Caitlin B Biddell, Kristen Hassmiller Lich, Sarah D Mills, Colleen R Higgins, Sachiko Ozawa, Stephanie B Wheeler","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251325509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> Delineation of historically marginalized populations in decision models can identify strategies to improve equity but requires assumptions in both model structure and stratification of input data. <b>Purpose.</b> We sought to characterize alternative methodological approaches for incorporating marginalized populations into human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine decision-support models. <b>Data Sources.</b> We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase from January 2006 through June 2022. <b>Study Selection.</b> We identified simulation models of HPV vaccination that refine any model input to specifically reflect a marginalized population. <b>Data Extraction.</b> We extracted data on key methodological decisions across modeling approaches to incorporate marginalized populations, including stratification of inputs, model structure, attribution of prevaccine disparities, calibration, validation, and sensitivity analyses. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> We identified 30 models that stratified inputs by sexual behavior (i.e., men who have sex with men), HIV infection status, race, ethnicity, income, rurality, or combinations of these. We identified 5 common approaches used to incorporate marginalized groups. These included models based primarily on differences in sexual behavior (k = 6), HPV cancer incidence (k = 10), cancer screening and care access (k = 4), and HPV natural history (through either direct incorporation of data [k = 10] or calibration [k = 5]). Few models evaluated sensitivity around their conceptualization of the marginalized group, and only 5 models validated outcomes for the marginalized group. <b>Limitations.</b> Evaluated studies reflected a variety of settings and research questions, making it difficult to evaluate the implications of differences across modeling approaches. <b>Conclusions.</b> Modelers should be explicit about the assumptions and theory driving their model structure and input parameters specific to key marginalized populations, such as the causes of prevaccination differences in outcomes. More emphasis is needed on model validation and rigorous sensitivity analysis.HighlightsWe identified 30 unique HPV vaccination models that incorporated marginalized populations, including populations living with HIV, low-income or rural populations, and individuals of a marginalized race, ethnicity, or sexual behavior.Methods for incorporating these populations, as well as the assumptions inherent in the modeling structure and parameter selections, varied substantially, with models explicitly or implicitly attributing prevaccine differences to alternative combinations of biological, behavioral, and societal mechanisms.Modelers seeking to incorporate marginalized populations should be transparent about assumptions underlying model structure and data and examine these assumptions in sensitivity analysis when possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"358-369"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992634/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251325509","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Delineation of historically marginalized populations in decision models can identify strategies to improve equity but requires assumptions in both model structure and stratification of input data. Purpose. We sought to characterize alternative methodological approaches for incorporating marginalized populations into human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine decision-support models. Data Sources. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase from January 2006 through June 2022. Study Selection. We identified simulation models of HPV vaccination that refine any model input to specifically reflect a marginalized population. Data Extraction. We extracted data on key methodological decisions across modeling approaches to incorporate marginalized populations, including stratification of inputs, model structure, attribution of prevaccine disparities, calibration, validation, and sensitivity analyses. Data Synthesis. We identified 30 models that stratified inputs by sexual behavior (i.e., men who have sex with men), HIV infection status, race, ethnicity, income, rurality, or combinations of these. We identified 5 common approaches used to incorporate marginalized groups. These included models based primarily on differences in sexual behavior (k = 6), HPV cancer incidence (k = 10), cancer screening and care access (k = 4), and HPV natural history (through either direct incorporation of data [k = 10] or calibration [k = 5]). Few models evaluated sensitivity around their conceptualization of the marginalized group, and only 5 models validated outcomes for the marginalized group. Limitations. Evaluated studies reflected a variety of settings and research questions, making it difficult to evaluate the implications of differences across modeling approaches. Conclusions. Modelers should be explicit about the assumptions and theory driving their model structure and input parameters specific to key marginalized populations, such as the causes of prevaccination differences in outcomes. More emphasis is needed on model validation and rigorous sensitivity analysis.HighlightsWe identified 30 unique HPV vaccination models that incorporated marginalized populations, including populations living with HIV, low-income or rural populations, and individuals of a marginalized race, ethnicity, or sexual behavior.Methods for incorporating these populations, as well as the assumptions inherent in the modeling structure and parameter selections, varied substantially, with models explicitly or implicitly attributing prevaccine differences to alternative combinations of biological, behavioral, and societal mechanisms.Modelers seeking to incorporate marginalized populations should be transparent about assumptions underlying model structure and data and examine these assumptions in sensitivity analysis when possible.

将边缘化人群纳入 HPV 疫苗模型的方法:系统回顾。
背景。在决策模型中描述历史上被边缘化的人口可以确定改善公平的策略,但需要在模型结构和输入数据分层方面进行假设。目的。我们试图描述将边缘人群纳入人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗决策支持模型的替代方法。数据源。我们从2006年1月到2022年6月对PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus和Embase进行了系统检索。研究选择。我们确定了HPV疫苗接种的模拟模型,该模型可以改进任何模型输入,以具体反映边缘化人群。数据提取。我们提取了跨建模方法的关键方法学决策数据,以纳入边缘化人群,包括输入的分层、模型结构、疫苗前差异的归因、校准、验证和敏感性分析。合成数据。我们确定了30个模型,这些模型根据性行为(即与男性发生性关系的男性)、艾滋病毒感染状况、种族、民族、收入、农村地区或这些因素的组合对输入进行分层。我们确定了纳入边缘化群体的5种常见方法。这些模型包括主要基于性行为差异(k = 6)、HPV癌症发病率(k = 10)、癌症筛查和护理获取(k = 4)以及HPV自然史(通过直接合并数据[k = 10]或校准[k = 5])的模型。很少有模型评估边缘化群体概念化的敏感性,只有5个模型验证了边缘化群体的结果。的局限性。评估的研究反映了各种设置和研究问题,使得很难评估不同建模方法的差异的含义。结论。建模者应明确说明驱动其模型结构的假设和理论,以及特定于关键边缘人群的输入参数,例如预防接种结果差异的原因。需要更加重视模型验证和严格的灵敏度分析。我们确定了30种独特的HPV疫苗接种模型,这些模型纳入了边缘人群,包括艾滋病毒感染者、低收入或农村人口以及边缘种族、民族或性行为的个体。纳入这些人群的方法,以及建模结构和参数选择中固有的假设,都有很大的不同,模型明确或隐含地将疫苗前的差异归因于生物、行为和社会机制的不同组合。试图纳入边缘人群的建模者应该对模型结构和数据背后的假设保持透明,并尽可能在敏感性分析中检查这些假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信