Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on HPV Recommendations: Themes of Interest to Different Population Groups and Strategies for Approaching Them

Le résumé fourni par la source

As a flagship of the Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, the European Commission supports EU member states' efforts to strengthen and expand the routine vaccination of girls and boys against human papillomavirus (HPV). Populations across Europe have grown in diversity, and health systems must adapt to meet the specific needs of increasing diversity. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) must strive to communicate HPV vaccine information in a culturally sensitive manner and address specific concerns related to cultural beliefs, trust in health systems and perceived risks. The objectives of this exploratory study are to identify which themes are most frequently raised during the recommendation of vaccination to minors based on the characteristics of the population (religion, region of origin, gender, level of education and language proficiency) and to collect strategies to improve communication with a diverse population. A survey was distributed through various European public health institutions to HCPs in the region and their networks. The survey included multi-response questions (themes addressed during vaccination recommendation based on population characteristics) and open-ended questions (own qualitative comments and strategies). The most common issues that arise during vaccine recommendation are a lack of knowledge, followed by misinformation. Differences were detected according to the population characteristics. Suggested strategies to improve HPV vaccine recommendation focused on the following aspects: affordability; sexuality and gender; communication platforms; multilingualism; quality of care; school collaboration. HCPs report differences according to the characteristics of the population receiving the recommendation. Personalisation of the recommendations would help to optimise the decision-making process for some groups.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.