Table 3.
Correlates of physician support of HPV vaccination school-entry requirements (N = 775).
| # of respondents who agreed with the statement “I think these laws are a good idea”/ Total in category (%) | Bivariate OR (95% CI) | Multivariable OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physician attitudes about HPV vaccines | |||
| Requirements for Tdap vaccine make HPV vaccine seem less important | |||
| Did not agree | 50/198 (25) | Ref | Ref |
| Agree | 316/577 (55) | 3.58 (2.50-5.14) | 3.33 (2.26-4.90) |
| Relative importance of HPV vaccine to physicians1 | |||
| Less important | 138/392 (35) | Ref | Ref |
| As or more important | 228/383 (56) | 2.71 (2.02-3.62) | 2.30 (1.65-3.18) |
| Perceived relative importance of HPV vaccine to parents1 | |||
| Less important | 299/646 (46) | Ref | — |
| As or more important | 67/129 (52) | 1.25 (0.86-1.83) | — |
| Quality of current HPV vaccine recommendation practices | |||
| Low | 146/418 (35) | Ref | Ref |
| High | 220/357 (62) | 2.99 (2.23-4.01) | 2.06 (1.45-2.93) |
| Used presumptive style for HPV vaccine recommendation | |||
| No | 227/539 (42) | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 139/236 (59) | 1.97 (1.44-2.69) | 1.30 (0.95-1.81) |
| HPV vaccine conversations uncomfortablebecause of having to talk about sex | |||
| Did not agree | 239/526 (45) | Ref | — |
| Agree | 127/249 (51) | 1.25 (0.92-1.69) | — |
| Takes more time to discuss HPV vaccine1 | |||
| No | 147/338 (43) | Ref | — |
| Yes | 219/437 (50) | 1.31 (0.98-1.74) | — |
| Pharmacists provision of HPV vaccine benefits adolescents past due | |||
| Did not agree | 204/470 (43) | Ref | Ref |
| Agree | 162/305 (53) | 1.48 (1.11-1.97) | 1.31 (0.95-1.81) |
| Physician characteristics | |||
| Sex | |||
| Male | 256/525 (49) | Ref | — |
| Female | 110/250 (44) | 0.83 (0.61-1.12) | — |
| Medical subspecialty | |||
| Pediatrics | 195/410 (48) | Ref | — |
| Family medicine | 171/365 (47) | 0.97 (0.73-1.29) | — |
| Years practicing medicine | |||
| <20 years | 149/351 (42) | Ref | Ref |
| ≥20 years | 217/424 (51) | 1.42 (1.07-1.89) | 1.49 (1.09-2.04) |
| Patients ages 11-17 seen per week | |||
| <10 | 65/129 (50) | ||
| 10-24 | 157/350 (45) | 0.80 (0.54-1.20) | — |
| ≥25 | 144/296 (49) | 0.93 (0.61-1.41) | — |
| Practice characteristics | |||
| Private practice | |||
| Yes | 306/650 (47) | Ref | — |
| No | 60/115 (52) | 1.26 (0.85-1.88) | — |
| Number of physicians | |||
| 1 | 48/115 (42) | Ref | — |
| 2-4 | 135/283 (48) | 1.27 (0.82-1.97) | — |
| 5-9 | 99/217 (46) | 1.17 (0.74-1.85) | — |
| ≥10 | 84/160 (53) | 1.54 (0.95-2.50) | — |
| Vaccines provided that are financed by VFC | |||
| 0-9% | 138/290 (48) | Ref | — |
| 10-49% | 125/273 (46) | 0.93 (0.67-1.30) | — |
| ≥50% | 78/152 (51) | 1.16 (0.78-1.72) | — |
| Not sure | 25/60 (42) | 0.79 (0.45-1.38) | — |
| Regularly stocks HPV vaccine | |||
| No | 33/73 (45) | Ref | — |
| Yes | 333/702 (47) | 1.09 (0.67-1.78) | — |
| Region | |||
| Northeast | 82/184 (47) | Ref | — |
| Midwest | 81/165 (49) | 1.20 (0.89-1.59) | — |
| South | 128/274 (47) | 1.09 (0.75-1.59) | — |
| West | 75/152 (49) | 1.21 (0.79-1.86) | — |
| Dismisses families who continue to refuse adolescent vaccines2 | |||
| No | 325/684 (48) | Ref | — |
| Yes | 41/91 (45) | 0.91 (0.58-1.41) | — |
Note. VFC=Vaccines for Children program; HPV=human papillomavirus; Ref = Referent group; Dashes (–) indicate the variable was not included in the multivariable model because it was not statistically significant at the bivariate analysis.
1
Relative to Tdap and meningococcal vaccines
2
Clinics with a ‘yes’ answer have a policy that may dismiss patients or families if they continue to refuse any or all of the following vaccines: Tdap, meningococcal, HPV.