Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 article

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

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

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.

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

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

La source scientifique ouverte est momentanément indisponible.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.