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.