Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 4;9(2):306–313. doi: 10.4161/hv.22614

Table 2. Parents’ comfort with getting their sons HPV vaccine in alternative settings (n = 506).

 
Comfort
Bivariate
Multivariable
  Mean (SD) β (95% CI) β (95% CI)
Parent Characteristics
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sex
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Female
2.93
(1.18)
ref
 
-
 
    Male
2.85
(1.09)
-0.03
(-0.12, 0.15)
-
 
Age
 
 
 
 
 
 
    < 45 y
2.91
(1.18)
ref
 
-
 
    ≥ 45 y
2.86
(1.11)
-0.02
(-0.11, 0.07)
-
 
Race / Ethnicity
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Non-Hispanic White
2.87
(1.17)
ref
 
-
 
    Non-Hispanic Black
2.96
(0.98)
0.03
(-0.06, 0.12)
-
 
    Hispanic
2.87
(1.10)
0.00
(-0.09, 0.09)
-
 
    Other race/ethnicity
3.10
(1.20)
0.04
(-0.04, 0.13)
-
 
Education
 
 
 
 
 
 
    High school degree or less
2.95
(1.16)
ref
 
-
 
    Some college or more
2.85
(1.12)
-0.04
(-0.13, 0.04)
-
 
Marital status
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Divorced, widowed, separated, never married
2.89
(1.08)
ref
 
-
 
    Married or living with a partner
2.89
(1.15)
0.00
(-0.09, 0.09)
-
 
Son Characteristics
 
 
 
 
 
 
Age
 
 
 
 
 
 
    11–12 y
2.73
(1.15)
ref
 
ref
 
    13–15 y
2.91
(1.17)
0.08
(-0.03, 0.22)
0.02
(-0.07, 0.12)
    16–17 y
3.02
(1.08)
0.12
(0.02, 0.23)*
0.05
(-0.05, 0.15)
Saw a health care provider in past year
 
 
 
 
 
 
    No
3.10
(1.09)
0.09
(0.01–0.18)*
0.09
(0.01, 0.18)*
    Yes
2.84
(1.14)
ref
 
ref
 
Ever received any vaccines at school
 
 
 
 
 
 
    No
2.79
(1.12)
ref
 
ref
 
    Yes
3.45
(1.09)
0.20
(0.11, 0.29)**
0.17
(0.09, 0.26)**
    Don’t know
3.00
(1.16)
0.03
(-0.06, 0.12)
0.01
(-0.08, 0.09)
Household characteristics
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annual household income
 
 
 
 
 
 
     < $60,000
2.98
(1.14)
ref
 
-
 
     ≥ $60,000
2.81
(1.13)
-0.07
(-0.16, 0.1)
-
 
Urbanicity
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Rural
2.96
(1.10)
ref
 
-
 
     Urban
2.88
(1.15)
-0.03
(-0.12, 0.06)
-
 
Region of residence
 
 
 
 
 
 
     West
2.64
(1.14)
ref
 
ref
 
     Midwest
2.98
(1.12)
0.12
(0.01, 0.24)*
0.09
(-0.01, 0.20)
     Northeast
2.88
(1.13)
0.07
(-0.04, 0.18)
0.06
(-0.04, 0.16)
     South
3.02
(1.14)
0.15
(0.04, 0.27)*
0.13
(0.02, 0.24)*
HPV and HPV vaccine
 
 
 
 
 
 
Daughter has received HPV Vaccinea
 
 
 
 
 
 
    No
2.83
(1.16)
ref
 
ref
 
    Yes
3.15
(1.13)
0.10
(0.01, 0.19)*
0.01
(-0.09, 0.10)
    Does not have a daughter
2.87
(1.12)
0.02
(-0.08, 0.11)
-0.01
(-0.10, 0.08)
Thinks son's insurance covers HPV vaccineb
 
 
 
 
 
 
    No
3.03
(1.15)
ref
 
-
 
    Yes
2.81
(1.14)
-0.08
(-0.21, 0.06)
-
 
    Don’t know
2.89
(1.14)
-0.05
(-0.19, 0.08)
-
 
Son’s doctor said son should get HPV vaccinec
 
 
 
 
 
 
    No
2.90
(1.14)
ref
 
-
 
    Yes
2.71
(0.96)
-0.03
(-0.11, 0.06)
-
 
Worry about son getting HPV-related diseased,e
1.45
(0.76)
0.10
(0.02, 0.19)*
0.01
(-0.08, 0.10)
Perceived likelihood of son getting HPV-related diseased,f
2.20
(0.63)
0.14
(0.06, 0.23)**
0.06
(-0.03, 0.15)
Comfort talking with son about new vaccinesd,g
4.35
(0.79)
0.12
(0.04, 0.21)*
0.08
(0.01, 0.16)*
Amount talked with son about HPV vaccined,e
1.18
(0.49)
0.08
(-0.01, 0.17)
-
 
Perceived effectiveness of HPV vaccined,e
2.41
(0.92)
0.18
(0.09–0.26)**
0.02
(-0.07, 0.11)
Perceived uncertainty of HPV vaccined,h
3.57
(0.67)
-0.23
(-0.31, -0.14)**
-0.17
(-0.26, -0.09)**
Perceived harms of HPV vaccined,i
3.03
(0.53)
-0.23
(-0.31, -0.14)**
-0.08
(-0.18, 0.01)
Perceived barriers to getting son HPV vaccined,j
1.36
(0.47)
0.09
(0.01, 0.18)*
0.10
(0.02, 0.18)*
Anticipated regret if son got HPV vaccine and faintedd,e
2.70
(1.07)
-0.25
(-0.33, -0.16)**
-0.16
(-0.25, -0.07)**
Anticipated regret if son didn’t get HPV vaccine and later got HPV infectiond,e 3.17 (0.94) 0.10 (0.02, 0.19)* 0.03 (-0.06, 0.12)

Note: Table presents standardized regression coefficients (β) from linear regression models. Dashes (–) indicate that the model did not include the item. HPV, human papillomavirus; SD, standard deviation; ref, referent category. aNo (38%), Yes (14%), Did not have a daughter (48%); bNo (10%), Yes (21%), Don’t know (69%); cNo (98%), Yes (2%); dContinuous variable with overall mean (SD) reported. e4-point response scale ranging from “not at all” to “a lot” (coded 1–4). f4-point response scale ranging from “no chance” to “high chance” (coded 1–4). g2 item scale; each item had a 5-point response scale ranging from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable” (coded 1–5). h3 item scale; each item had a 5-point response scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (coded 1–5). fi5 item scale; each item had a 5-point response scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (coded 1–5). j2 item scale; each item had a 3-point response scale ranging from “not hard at all” to “very hard” (coded 1–3). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.