Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Geographic Factors and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Initiation among Adolescent Girls in the United States

Kevin A. Henry, Antoinette M. Stroup, Echo L. Warner and Deanna Kepka
Kevin A. Henry
1Department of Geography, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2Fox Chase Cancer Center, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: khenry1@temple.edu
Antoinette M. Stroup
3Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.
4Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Echo L. Warner
5Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deanna Kepka
5Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
6University of Utah College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0658 Published February 2016
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: This study is among the first to explore geographic factors that may be associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in the United States.

Methods: Data from the 2011 and 2012 National Immunization Survey-Teen for 20,565 female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years were analyzed to examine associations of HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of at least one dose) with ZIP code–level geographic factors. Logistic regression including individual and geographic factors was used to estimate the odds of HPV vaccine initiation.

Results: Approximately 53% of girls initiated the HPV vaccine in both years. Girls in high poverty communities had higher HPV vaccine initiation compared with those in low poverty communities [61.1% vs. 52.4%; adjusted OR (AOR), 1.18; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.04–1.33]. Initiation was higher among girls in communities where the majority of the population was Hispanic (69.0% vs. 49.9%; AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43–1.87) or non-Hispanic mixed race (60.4% vs. 49.9%; AOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17–1.44) compared with majority non-Hispanic white communities. Interactions between individual-level race/ethnicity and community racial–ethnic composition indicated significantly higher odds of initiation among Hispanic girls living in Hispanic communities compared with Hispanic girls living in predominantly non-Hispanic White (NHW) (AOR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.87–2.65) or non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (AOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20–3.04) communities, respectively.

Conclusion: Initiation rates of HPV vaccination among teen girls were highest in the poorest communities and among Hispanics living in communities where the racial–ethnic composition was predominantly Hispanic or mixed race.

Impact: Given low HPV vaccination rates in the United States, these results provide important evidence to inform public health interventions to increase HPV vaccination. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(2); 309–17. ©2016 AACR.

Introduction

The human papillomavirus (HPV) represents the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States (1). HPV infection is associated with cancers in women, including cervical, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and vaginal (2, 3). In the United States, approximately 20,589 HPV-associated cancers are diagnosed each year among females, many of which may be preventable with the current HPV vaccine (2, 4). Cervical cancer is the most common HPV-associated cancer found in women, accounting for about 55.5% (2).

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in HPV-associated cancers have been documented in the United States (5–7). Hispanic women have higher rates of cervical cancer compared with non-Hispanic women. White and Black women had higher rates of oropharyngeal cancer compared with women of other races, and rates of vulvar and anal cancers were higher for Whites and non-Hispanics than they were for other racial/ethnic groups. Rates of vaginal cancer were highest among Blacks (3). Furthermore, in the United States, incidence rates of each HPV-associated cancer were highest among women living in neighborhoods where 20% or more of the population is living below the poverty line compared with women living in neighborhoods where <5% of the population is living below poverty line (8).

Since 2006, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended the safe and effective HPV vaccine for girls aged 11 or 12 years, and for females aged 13 through 26 years not previously vaccinated (9). ACIP expanded its recommendation in 2011 to include boys. Receipt of the vaccine at ages 11 and 12 builds an effective immune response before the onset of sexual activity (10, 11). Despite ACIP recommendations, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain low. The Healthy People's 2020 goal for completing the recommended HPV vaccine three-dose series is 80% for girls (12); yet in 2013, only 57.3% (±1.9) of U.S. teen girls had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and only 37.6% (±2.0) had three or more doses of the vaccine.

To date, most HPV vaccination studies have examined individual- and provider-based factors as possible explanations for the low vaccination rates (13). These studies found that higher rates of HPV vaccine initiation were associated with older age, health insurance type, urban residence, physician recommendation for the vaccine, receipt of other childhood vaccines, provider reminders, and knowledge of HPV (13). The most recent data from the National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) indicate that girls whose families live below the poverty line had higher rates of both HPV vaccine initiation and receipt of the three-dose series compared with girls whose families live above the poverty line (14). Survey data also indicate that non-Hispanic (NH) Whites and Asians had lower rates of HPV vaccine initiation and receipt of the three-dose series compared with Hispanics, NH Blacks, and American Indian/Alaska Native (3).

In addition to provider- and individual-level factors, it is also possible that geographic or neighborhood factors, like area-based socioeconomic status (SES), could independently influence vaccination uptake. In other areas of cancer prevention research, geographic factors such as area-based SES, racial–ethnic composition, and rural versus urban residence have been shown to influence health status (e.g., cancer stage at diagnosis; refs. 15, 16) and health behaviors (e.g., up-to-date on mammogram) independent of an individual's SES or other individual factors such as health insurance (17–19). Similarly, area-based SES and geographic factors could influence vaccination uptake through pathways linked to the material resources of the neighborhood, availability and ease of access to healthcare facilities, and social capital or networks (e.g., social contagion, similar norms of behavior; refs. 20–22).

Numerous possible outcomes related to HPV vaccination uptake exist, given the different ways geographic factors can influence health service utilization. For example, economic burdens and barriers to care among lower income ethnic minority or rural communities could result in lower HPV vaccination initiation because of fewer health resources and limited financial resources (23–25). Similarly, language barriers (13) and a lack of awareness in ethnic minority communities (26–28) could result in lower uptake (29). In contrast, HPV vaccination initiation could be higher among lower income ethnic minority communities due to social support networks and resource availability associated with living among co-ethnics or with certain groups in segregated communities, similar cultural norms related to vaccination and other health behaviors, or in part to long-term targeted interventions or safety-net services, which provide free or subsidized vaccines (30, 31).

To date, no studies in the United States have examined the potential influence of the racial–ethnic composition of a community on HPV vaccination, and the three U.S. studies that examined the influence of area-based SES were inconsistent (32–34). Furthermore, these studies (32, 34) were limited to specific states or populations (33). To advance research in this area, investigators must explore area-based SES and other relevant geographic factors including the community racial–ethnic composition that could impact HPV vaccination rates using national data representing a wide variety of demographic and economic groups.

In this study, we analyzed data from the NIS-Teen to examine associations between HPV vaccine initiation among female adolescents and community-level factors including area-based poverty, rural/urban residence, and residential racial–ethnic composition. To our knowledge, this is the first study examining associations between geographic factors and HPV vaccine initiation among a nationally representative sample of teen girls in the United States while also accounting for individual-level characteristics.

Materials and Methods

Study data

All individual data were obtained from the restricted-use data files of the 2011 and 2012 NIS-Teen, an annual survey conducted by the CDC to monitor vaccination uptake in the United States. The NIS-Teen includes a nationally representative stratified sample of girls and boys aged 13 to 17 years in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey is based on random-digit dialing of both landline and cellular telephone numbers to identify eligible households. It includes two parts: a survey of parents or guardians of teens 13 to 17 years old to collect information about demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and a survey mailed to all vaccination providers whom the parents identified and consented to verify their teen's immunization histories. The survey sampling procedures have been described elsewhere (35).

Study participants

The 2011 and 2012 NIS-Teen included 18,573 and 15,137 girls aged 13 to 17 years, respectively, with completed surveys in the United States. Of the total 33,710 girls for 2011 and 2012, 20,565 (61%) had provider-verified vaccination records. The present study was limited to the girls with provider-verified vaccination records and complete records for all the variables included in the analysis.

Individual-level measures

We examined HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, either quadrivalent or bivalent) as the primary outcome variable. The outcome measure was dichotomized as zero doses or one or more doses of the HPV vaccine. We studied several individual-level variables from the survey: (i) the teen's current age in years; (ii) race/ethnicity [non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, NH Other, and Hispanic]; (iii) health insurance type (employer or union, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance, military or Indian Health Service, and no insurance); (iv) poverty status [categorized as above poverty, high income (annual income > $75,000); above poverty, moderate income (annual income ≤ $75,000), below poverty, based on the U.S. Census family poverty thresholds; ref. 36; and unknown]; (v) receipt of a provider recommendation for HPV vaccination (yes, no, or don't know); (vi) mother's age (≤34 years, 35–44, or ≥45); (vii) marital status (currently married or not currently married); and (viii) education level (<12 years; 12 years with high school diploma or general equivalency diploma; >12 years without college degree; or college degree or higher). We also included one healthcare system-level factor: facility type where vaccines were administered.

Community-level measures

Using the ZIP codes of participants' current residences, several geographic measures based on U.S. census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) were merged with the NIS-Teen at the CDC Research Data Center (RDC). The ZCTAs are generalized areal representations of U.S. Postal Service areas, and in most instances, the ZCTA is the same as the ZIP code (37). Ninety-eight percent of the ZCTAs matched residential ZIP codes from the NIS-Teen participants included in this study.

We developed geographic factors using measures of community disadvantage previously included in health disparities research (38, 39) and research on vaccination uptake and use of cancer screening services (16, 33, 34, 40–42). Using the 2008–2012 U.S. Census American Community Survey, we developed the following community-level geographic factors: (i) percentage of a ZCTA's residents living below the federal poverty level (36); (ii) median household income of ZCTA; (iii) population density, and (iv) the racial–ethnic residential composition of the ZCTA. These variables were each divided into quartiles based on the distribution of these measures across ZCTAs. Percent living below poverty was categorized into (i) <5%, (ii) 5%–< 10%, (iii) 10%–< 20%, and (iv) ≥20%.

We operationalized the measure of racial-ethnic residential segregation using census data on racial–ethnic composition because of our focus on the majority racial/ethnic group in each ZIP code (43, 44). Numerous studies have shown that persistent residential racial/ethnic segregation in the United States serves as both a health promoter by facilitating stronger social support networks and as a health barrier by fostering conditions that limit resources (16, 39, 45, 46). Racial–ethnic composition in this study was based on ZCTAs having >50% Hispanic, >50% NHW, >50% NH Asian-Pacific Islander (NHAPI), >50% NHB, >50% NH American Indian/Native Alaskan, or mixed (NHM), if not any of the previous. Because of small numbers after merging the racial–ethnic composition variables with the NIS-Teen, we combined NH American Indian/Native Alaskan with NHAPI into a category called NH-other.

We also included ZCTA measures of rural and urban residence based on the rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCA; ref. 47). The RUCAs provided a definition of rural/urban residences based on criteria that included population density and population work-commuting patterns. We categorized this variable as urban, large rural city/town, small rural town, and isolated small rural town (47).

Statistical analysis

For analysis, we combined the NIS-Teen datasets for 2011 and 2012, using suggested methods (35), and included appropriate sampling weights for calculating the weighted percentages and effect estimates (48). We used weighted frequencies and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to describe the characteristics of the sample. We performed bivariate association tests between HPV vaccination initiation (receipt of one HPV vaccine dose) and individual-level and community-based geographic variables with Wald χ2 tests.

The study used bivariate logistic regression models to estimate the crude ORs and 95% CIs of vaccination series initiation for each of the individual-level and geographic variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% CIs of vaccination initiation. One multivariable model included only individual and provider factors, and two separate multivariable models were run to examine the independent associations of ZIP code level poverty and racial–ethnic composition with vaccination outcomes. Joint contributions of individual poverty and area poverty and racial segregation were assessed with interaction terms between individual-level race/ethnicity and ZIP code-level poverty and racial–ethnic composition. The surveyed state was included as a random effect to account for dependency by state residence (e.g., state health programs that will influence the girls from that state).

Bivariate associations were analyzed using procedures for complex survey data in SAS statistical software (i.e., PROC SURVEYFREQ; ref. 49). Logistic regression analyses were conducted using SAS GLIMMIX, which implements the Generalized Linear Mixed Model and allows for the incorporation of stratum-specific weighted analysis (50). Statistical tests were two-tailed with a critical α of .05.

Results

Sociodemographic and geographic characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1. Sixty percent, or 20,565, of girls in the age range of 13 to 17 years had adequate provider data in the 2011 and 2012 NIS-Teen and were included in the study. Overall, 53.5% of girls received more than one dose of HPV vaccine; the proportion was slightly lower in 2011 (53.2%) than in 2012 (53.8%). Most girls were NHW (55.3%) living in urban communities (88.6%) with population densities greater than 651 persons per square mile (quartile 4; 59.5%), and in predominantly NHW (69.5%) ZIP codes. Most mothers were >35 years old (89.3%), without a college degree (33.8%) and had employer- or union-provided health insurance (46.3%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Individual-level and geographic characteristics of HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of at least one dose) among female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years and their families: National Immunization Survey–Teen, 2011–2012

Table 2 shows the bivariate (unadjusted) ORs and AORs from the multivariable logistic regression models. In the bivariate analysis, all variables were statistically significantly associated with HPV vaccine initiation. Girls living in high density, high poverty, or urban communities had higher odds of vaccine initiation than girls living in low density, low poverty, or rural communities, respectively. Girls living in predominantly minority communities also had higher odds of vaccine initiation compared with those in predominantly NHW communities, regardless of race/ethnicity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Association between characteristics of female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years and HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of at least one dose): National Immunization Survey–Teen, 2011–2012

In multivariable analyses that included only individual and provider factors (Table 2, Model 1), all variables associated with vaccine initiation from the bivariate analysis remained statistically significant (P ≤ .05). Findings were consistent after adjusting for ZIP code poverty and population density (Model 2), except for the individual NHB race/ethnicity, which was no longer significant.

Girls with health insurance through Medicaid or SCHIP had higher odds of HPV vaccine initiation than those with employer- or union-provided insurance (Model 1, AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.24–1.48). Among girls who received a provider recommendation to vaccinate, the odds of vaccination initiation were 3.73 times greater than in girls without such a recommendation. Higher odds of vaccine initiation were also associated with girls whose mothers had <12 years of education compared with those with a college degree (Model 1, AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.53–1.95); among girls with mothers younger than 35 years old compared with girls with mothers 45 years and older (Model 1, AOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29–1.62); and among girls from households with income below the poverty threshold compared to households above the poverty threshold (Model 1, AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10–1.39).

On the basis of Model 2 results, which included individual and provider factors and ZIP code-level poverty and population density, girls living in communities with the highest poverty levels had higher odds of HPV vaccination initiation compared with girls living in communities with the lowest poverty levels (Model 2, AOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04–1.33). Girls living in communities with the highest population density had higher odds of HPV vaccination initiation compared with girls from the lowest population density categories (Model 2, AOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24–1.80).

Model 3 included individual factors and ZIP code-level racial–ethnic composition and population density. The odds of HPV vaccine initiation was higher among girls from communities where the majority race–ethnic group was Hispanic (AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43–1.87), mixed race (AOR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17–1.44), NHB (AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.0–1.34), or other NH race (AOR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.87–3.71) compared with girls from communities where the majority race–ethnic group was NHW.

The interaction terms—individual race/ethnicity × ZIP code poverty and individual race/ethnicity × ZIP code racial–ethnic composition—were both overall statistically significant (results not shown). The results indicated that Hispanics living in high poverty ZIP codes (poverty ≥ 10%) had higher odds of HPV vaccine initiation compared with Hispanics living in lower poverty ZIP codes (poverty 0%–9.9%; AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.16–1.65). A similar association was found for NH other/multiple races living in high poverty versus low poverty ZIP codes (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16–1.76). No other race/ethnicity and ZIP code poverty groups were significant.

Figure 1 shows the model-adjusted percent of girls vaccinated based on race/ethnicity and ZIP code racial–ethnic composition. Initiation rates were lowest for NHW and NHB and highest for Hispanics regardless of the community's racial–ethnic composition. The odds of initiation among Hispanic girls living in Hispanic communities were 2.23 (95% CI, 1.87–2.65) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.20–3.04) times higher than for those living in predominantly NHW or NHB communities, respectively (results not shown).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Multivariable model adjusted percent of girls that initiated HPV vaccination (receipt of at least one dose) by individual level race/ethnicity and ZIP code racial-ethnic composition. The adjusted percents are based on a multivariable logistic regression that included the following variables: year, child's age, type of insurance coverage, mothers education (years), mother's marital status, mother's age, years, poverty status, race/ethnicity of teen, recommendation to get HPV vaccine, ZIP code population density, ZIP code racial composition (50%+ of that group), state random effects, and an interaction term for racial composition × race/ethnicity. Racial composition includes the majority race by ZIP code: Mixed, no majority race; NHB, non-Hispanic Black; NHW, non-Hispanic White. The racial composition category NH-other was excluded from the figure because of small numbers.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between HPV vaccine initiation and individual- and community-level geographic factors among teen girls in the United States. Overall the odds of initiation were highest among older girls, girls with SCHIP or Medicaid health insurance, girls with younger mothers, and those whose mothers had lower levels of education and incomes below the federal poverty level. Receipt of a provider recommendation was one of the factors most strongly associated with HPV vaccination initiation. These findings are consistent with previous studies that examined survey data (33, 34, 51–53). Also consistent with recent reports (54, 55), we found that the rates of HPV vaccination initiation were highest for Hispanic girls compared with NHW, NHB and other NH race groups. We also found that geographic factors including area-based poverty, residential racial–ethnic composition, and population density were significantly associated with HPV vaccination initiation even after adjusting for individual-level factors.

Our findings indicating higher HPV vaccination initiation among girls living in the poorest communities may seem contrary to conventional beliefs that socioeconomic disadvantage may result in barriers to care and underutilization of health services. However, it is also plausible that the availability of safety-net immunization services for these populations and their access to HPV vaccines through the Vaccine for Children (VFC) program, which is a federally funded program providing free recommended vaccines to eligible children, may be contributing to the higher HPV vaccine uptake (56, 57). Independent of race/ethnicity, the lower HPV vaccine uptake in less disadvantaged or affluent communities could be attributable to barriers related to out-of-pocket expenses for girls who are underinsured, a lack of physician recommendation, and/or infrequent preventive medicine visits. Furthermore, parents in less disadvantaged or affluent communities may be less supportive of the HPV vaccine (58). Future research should consider changes in HPV vaccine initiation in these communities resulting from The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which offers opportunities to improve HPV vaccination coverage among teens. Presently, the ACA requires health insurers to cover the costs of all ACIP-recommended vaccinations at no cost to consumers when provided by in-network providers (59).

Our findings related to community-level poverty were similar to those of one of three previous studies examining area-based SES and HPV vaccination. Pruitt and colleagues (33) reported that girls in poorer counties in six U.S. states were more likely to initiate the vaccine than girls in wealthier counties. In contrast, Chao and colleagues (32) used data from a managed care organization in California and found that girls from high-income neighborhoods were more likely to initiate the vaccine than girls from low-income neighborhoods. The difference in the findings might result from Chao's inclusion of girls within a different age range (9–17) and only those who were members of the managed care organization, therefore not including underinsured and/or unemployed populations, who might have different vaccination rates (32). Our findings were also different from those of Tsui and colleagues' study that included adolescent girls from Los Angeles County. They found that neighborhood factors, including poverty, were not independently associated with vaccine initiation after adjusting for individual factors (34). The lack of a significant association in Tsui's study may be related to the unique, small, and homogeneous sample (n = 479) of immigrant, low-income mothers of adolescent girls in the study.

Our findings indicating an independent association of residential racial-ethnic segregation and HPV vaccination initiation suggest that geographic factors play an important role in HPV vaccinations beyond individual-level characteristics. We found that girls from geographic communities with a majority Hispanic, Black, or mixed-race population had significantly higher odds of vaccination initiation than those from majority NHW communities. Residential racial-ethnic segregation in the United States has been shown both to negatively influence health outcomes through social isolation and lack of access to health and preventative services (60–62) and to positively affect health through strong social support networks and the availability of more health-promoting resources (43, 63, 64). Racial-ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poorer, inner-city urban areas than are NHWs (16, 65) for reasons including racial discrimination, institutional racism, and immigrant settlement patterns (16, 65). In our study, among the girls living in majority Hispanic or NHB communities, 72% and 74% of them, respectively, lived in communities where ≥20% of the population was below the poverty line. In contrast, among the girls living in majority NHW or mixed race/ethnicity communities, only 13% and 35% of them, respectively, lived in similarly impoverished communities. The higher HPV vaccination rates in poor communities with a high concentration of racial-ethnic minorities could therefore be a result of healthcare practice and community-based interventions (e.g., educating key stakeholders influential to the adolescents' vaccination behaviors) and other intervention strategies (66–70) in support of HPV vaccination that have focused efforts on poor Hispanic and Black communities where rates of cervical cancer rates are highest (6).

Our findings also indicated that Hispanic girls living in predominantly Hispanic or mixed race/ethnicity communities had HPV vaccination initiation rates significantly higher than Hispanics living in predominantly NHW or NHB communities. This result could be due to positive or protective factors related to living in communities with a high concentration of ethnic minorities sharing the same health-related values, who provide critical social and instrumental support, and are targeted for public health safety-net services and interventions, (71). These findings are consistent with those of previous studies showing residential racial–ethnic composition can influence health behaviors (43, 45). Higher HPV vaccination initiation rates among Hispanics living in predominantly Hispanic communities could also be a result of low levels of acculturation. Although we did not directly measure acculturation in this study, Hispanic residential segregation in the United States has been shown to be correlated with lower levels of acculturation and low SES (44, 72–74); and, there is evidence from past studies that Hispanics with lower levels of acculturation are more supportive of vaccination for their children than are other demographic groups (75, 76).

For NHB girls, the community's racial–ethnic composition did not substantially change the HPV vaccination initiation rates. Why this study does not show the same protective effect among NHB girls living in poor, predominantly NHB communities as it does for Hispanics girls living in predominantly Hispanic communities is not known; however, it could be related to ease of accessing safety-net services and/or less effective intervention programs. Additional research is needed to better understand why these differences exist and to further understand the independent and/or joint contributions of race, segregation, and poverty on the uptake of HPV vaccination.

Our findings are subject to several limitations. First, the household response rates for 2011 and 2012 were 57.2% and 55.1%, respectively, and the cell phone response rates for the same years were 22.4% and 23.3%, respectively. Although sampling weights are designed to minimize nonresponse and noncoverage bias, some bias remains in the weighted estimates used for analysis. Second, the parents' role in the survey is subject to recall bias. Some parents may have incorrectly recalled whether they had ever received a provider recommendation for the HPV vaccine. Third, the NIS-Teen did not collect certain data potentially important to HPV vaccine initiation, including the parents' health beliefs and uptake of other childhood immunizations. Finally, community geographic measures were based on ZCTA data because these were the smallest geographic units available via NIS-Teen. ZCTA measures have been shown to be more heterogeneous than other preferred geographic units like census tracts and blocks (77). A change in geographic unit (ZIP code to census tract) may result in different conclusions than those that are based on another unit of analysis (often called the modifiable unit problem).

In conclusion, this study found that initiation rates of HPV vaccination among teen girls were highest in the poorest communities and among Hispanics living in communities where the racial–ethnic composition was predominantly Hispanic or mixed race. It also found that regardless of individual race/ethnicity, girls living in predominantly NHW and NHB communities had the lowest initiation rates. The reasons are unknown, but if public health officials wish to increase vaccination coverage in girls in these communities, they should obtain a better understanding of the individual characteristics and geographic or contextual factors that may lead to barriers to HPV vaccination and ineffective public health interventions.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the NIH, Huntsman Cancer Institute Foundation, Primary Children's Hospital Foundation, or the Beaumont Foundation.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: K.A. Henry, E.L. Warner, D. Kepka

Development of methodology: K.A. Henry, D. Kepka

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): K.A. Henry, E.L. Warner, D. Kepka

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): K.A. Henry, D. Kepka

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: K.A. Henry, A.M. Stroup, E.L. Warner, D. Kepka

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): K.A. Henry, E.L. Warner

Study supervision: K.A. Henry, D. Kepka

Other (completed analysis at Research Data Center): K.A. Henry

Grant Support

This work was supported in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute Foundation (to D. Kepka), Primary Children's Hospital Foundation (to D. Kepka), and the Beaumont Foundation (to D. Kepka). D. Kepka was also supported by the University of Utah, School of Medicine, Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH Award KL2TR001065).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • Received June 22, 2015.
  • Revision received September 28, 2015.
  • Accepted October 28, 2015.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dunne EF,
    2. Unger ER,
    3. Sternberg M,
    4. McQuillan G,
    5. Swan DC,
    6. Patel SS,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence of HPV infection among females in the United States. JAMA 2007;297:813–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HPV-Associated Cancers Statistics. Accessed September 5, 2015. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm.
  3. 3.↵
    Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Human papillomavirus-associated cancers - United States, 2004–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61:258–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dunne EF,
    2. Markowitz LE,
    3. Saraiya M,
    4. Stokley S,
    5. Middleman A,
    6. Unger ER,
    7. et al.
    CDC grand rounds: Reducing the burden of HPV-associated cancer and disease. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:69–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Simard EP,
    3. Dorell C,
    4. Noone AM,
    5. Markowitz LE,
    6. Kohler B,
    7. et al.
    Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:175–201.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jeudin P,
    2. Liveright E,
    3. Del Carmen MG,
    4. Perkins RB
    . Race, ethnicity, and income factors impacting human papillomavirus vaccination rates. Clin Ther 2014;36:24–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Niccolai LM,
    2. Mehta NR,
    3. Hadler JL
    . Racial/Ethnic and poverty disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination completion. Am J Prev Med 2011;41:428–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Boscoe FP,
    2. Johnson CJ,
    3. Sherman RL,
    4. Stinchcomb DG,
    5. Lin G,
    6. Henry KA
    . The relationship between area poverty rate and site-specific cancer incidence in the United States. Cancer 2014;120:2191–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kuehn BM
    . CDC panel backs routine HPV vaccination. JAMA 2006;296:640–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Teen Vacciantion Coverage 2013 National Immunization Survey (NIS)-Teen. 2013; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/teen/tables/13/tab01_iap_2013.pdf.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Elam-Evans LD,
    2. Yankey D,
    3. Jeyarajah J,
    4. Singleton JA,
    5. Curtis RC,
    6. MacNeil J,
    7. et al.
    National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years–United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:625–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 Summary of Objectives.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Holman DM,
    2. Benard V,
    3. Roland KB,
    4. Watson M,
    5. Liddon N,
    6. Stokley S
    . Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccination among US adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. JAMA Pediatr 2014;168:76–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Elam-Evans LD,
    2. Yankey D,
    3. Singleton JA,
    4. Kolasa M,
    5. Centers for Disease C, Prevention
    . National, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months - United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:741–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Merkin SS,
    2. Stevenson L,
    3. Powe N
    . Geographic socioeconomic status, race, and advanced-stage breast cancer in New York City. Am J Public Health 2002;92:64–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Warner ET,
    2. Gomez SL
    . Impact of neighborhood racial composition and metropolitan residential segregation on disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis and survival between black and white women in California. J Community Health 2010;35:398–408.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Shariff-Marco S,
    2. Yang J,
    3. John EM,
    4. Sangaramoorthy M,
    5. Hertz A,
    6. Koo J,
    7. et al.
    Impact of neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status on survival after breast cancer varies by race/ethnicity: the Neighborhood and Breast Cancer Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:793–811.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Lantz PM,
    2. Mujahid M,
    3. Schwartz K,
    4. Janz NK,
    5. Fagerlin A,
    6. Salem B,
    7. et al.
    The influence of race, ethnicity, and individual socioeconomic factors on breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2173–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Henry KA,
    2. McDonald K,
    3. Sherman R,
    4. Kinney AY,
    5. Stroup AM
    . Association between individual and geographic factors and nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2014;23:664–74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Adler NE,
    2. Newman K
    . Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Affairs 2002;21:60–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Diez Roux AV
    . Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1783–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Robert SA
    . Socioeconomic position and health: the independent contribution of community socioeconomic context. Annu Rev Sociol 1999;25:489–516.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Arcury TA,
    2. Gesler WM,
    3. Preisser JS,
    4. Sherman J,
    5. Spencer J,
    6. Perin J
    . The effects of geography and spatial behavior on health care utilization among the residents of a rural region. Health Serv Res 2005;40:135–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Field K
    . Measuring the need for primary health care: an index of relative disadvantage. Appl Geogr 2000;20:305–32.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Freeman HE,
    2. Corey CR
    . Insurance status and access to health services among poor persons. Health Serv Res 1993;28:531–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Jain N,
    2. Euler GL,
    3. Shefer A,
    4. Lu P,
    5. Yankey D,
    6. Markowitz L
    . Human papillomavirus (HPV) awareness and vaccination initiation among women in the United States, National Immunization Survey-Adult 2007. Prev Med 2009;48:426–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Marlow LA,
    2. Wardle J,
    3. Forster AS,
    4. Waller J
    . Ethnic differences in human papillomavirus awareness and vaccine acceptability. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:1010–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Cui Y,
    2. Baldwin SB,
    3. Wiley DJ,
    4. Fielding JE
    . Human papillomavirus vaccine among adult women: disparities in awareness and acceptance. Am J Prev Med 2010;39:559–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Glenn BA,
    2. Tsui J,
    3. Singhal R,
    4. Sanchez L,
    5. Nonzee NJ,
    6. Chang LC,
    7. et al.
    Factors associated with HPV awareness among mothers of low-income ethnic minority adolescent girls in Los Angeles. Vaccine 2015;33:289–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Malo TL,
    2. Hassani D,
    3. Staras SA,
    4. Shenkman EA,
    5. Giuliano AR,
    6. Vadaparampil ST
    . Do Florida Medicaid providers' barriers to HPV vaccination vary based on VFC program participation? Matern Child Health J 2013;17:609–15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Walker AT,
    2. Smith PJ,
    3. Kolasa M
    . Reduction of racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage, 1995–2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63 Suppl 1:7–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Chao C,
    2. Velicer C,
    3. Slezak JM,
    4. Jacobsen SJ
    . Correlates for human papillomavirus vaccination of adolescent girls and young women in a managed care organization. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:357–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Pruitt SL,
    2. Schootman M
    . Geographic disparity, area poverty, and human papillomavirus vaccination. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:525–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Tsui J,
    2. Gee GC,
    3. Rodriguez HP,
    4. Kominski GF,
    5. Glenn BA,
    6. Singhal R,
    7. et al.
    Exploring the role of neighborhood socio-demographic factors on HPV vaccine initiation among low-income, ethnic minority girls. J Immigr Minor Health 2013;15:732–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 2011 National Immunization Survey- Teen Data User's Guide. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. Accessed January 26, 2015.Available at from: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/NIS/NISTEENPUF12_DUG.pdf.
  36. 36.↵
    U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years, 2011–2012. Available from: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/.
  37. 37.↵
    US Census Bureau. ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs). Available from: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Krieger N,
    2. Waterman PD,
    3. Chen JT,
    4. Soobader MJ,
    5. Subramanian SV
    . Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence: geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measures–the public health disparities geocoding project (US). Public Health Rep 2003;118:240–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Li K,
    2. Wen M,
    3. Henry KA
    . Residential racial composition and black-white obesity risks: differential effects of neighborhood social and built environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11:626–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Anderson AE,
    2. Henry KA,
    3. Samadder NJ,
    4. Merrill RM,
    5. Kinney AY
    . Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:526–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Flores YN,
    2. Davidson PL,
    3. Nakazono TT,
    4. Carreon DC,
    5. Mojica CM,
    6. Bastani R
    . Neighborhood socio-economic disadvantage and race/ethnicity as predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1061.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Tsui J,
    2. Singhal R,
    3. Rodriguez HP,
    4. Gee GC,
    5. Glenn BA,
    6. Bastani R
    . Proximity to safety-net clinics and HPV vaccine uptake among low-income, ethnic minority girls. Vaccine 2013;31:2028–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. White K,
    2. Borrell LN
    . Racial/ethnic residential segregation: framing the context of health risk and health disparities. Health Place 2011;17:438–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Massey DS,
    2. Denton NA
    . The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc Forces 1988;67:281–315.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Russell E,
    2. Kramer MR,
    3. Cooper HL,
    4. Thompson WW,
    5. Arriola KR
    . Residential racial composition, spatial access to care, and breast cancer mortality among women in Georgia. J Urban Health 2011;88:1117–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Russell EF,
    2. Kramer MR,
    3. Cooper HL,
    4. Gabram-Mendola S,
    5. Senior-Crosby D,
    6. Jacob Arriola KR
    . Metropolitan area racial residential segregation, neighborhood racial composition, and breast cancer mortality. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23:1519–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Rural Health Research Center University of Washington. Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCAs). (2007). University of Washington, Retrieved 3 March 2010 from University of Washington: Available from: http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-rural.php.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Jain N,
    2. Singleton JA,
    3. Montgomery M,
    4. Skalland B
    . Determining accurate vaccination coverage rates for adolescents: the National Immunization Survey-Teen 2006. Public Health Rep 2009;124:642–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS for Windows, Version 9.3. SAS Institute; Cary, NC, USA.
  50. 50.↵
    Institute S. The GLIMMIX procedure. SAS Institute; Cary, NC; 2005.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Dorell CG,
    2. Yankey D,
    3. Santibanez TA,
    4. Markowitz LE
    . Human papillomavirus vaccination series initiation and completion, 2008–2009. Pediatrics 2011;128:830–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rahman M,
    2. McGrath CJ,
    3. Berenson AB
    . Geographic variation in human papillomavirus vaccination uptake among 13–17 year old adolescent girls in the United States. Vaccine 2014;32:2394–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Ylitalo KR,
    2. Lee H,
    3. Mehta NK
    . Health care provider recommendation, human papillomavirus vaccination, and race/ethnicity in the US National Immunization Survey. Am J Public Health 2013;103:164–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Curtis CR,
    2. Dorell C,
    3. Yankey D,
    4. Jeyarajah J,
    5. Chesson H,
    6. Saraiya M,
    7. et al.
    National human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years-National Immunization Survey–teen, United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63 Suppl 2:61–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Stokley S,
    2. Jeyarajah J,
    3. Yankey D,
    4. Cano M,
    5. Gee J,
    6. Roark J,
    7. et al.
    Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents, 2007–2013, and postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring, 2006–2014–United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:620–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Walker AT,
    2. Smith PJ,
    3. Kolasa M,
    4. Centers for Disease C, Prevention
    . Reduction of racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage, 1995–2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63 Suppl 1:7–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Lindley MC,
    2. Smith PJ,
    3. Rodewald LE
    . Vaccination coverage among U.S. adolescents aged 13–17 years eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, 2009. Public Health Rep 2011;126 Suppl 2:124–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Reich JA
    . Neoliberal Mothering and Vaccine Refusal: Imagined Gated Communities and the Privilege of Choice. Gender & Society 2014;28:679–704.
  59. 59.↵
    The Affordable Care Act and Immunization. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2015. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2010/09/The-Affordable-Care-Act-and-Immunization.html.
  60. 60.↵
    1. Schulz A,
    2. Israel B,
    3. Williams D,
    4. Parker E,
    5. Becker A,
    6. James S
    . Social inequalities, stressors and self reported health status among African American and white women in the Detroit metropolitan area. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:1639–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Williams DR,
    2. Collins C
    . Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep 2001;116:404–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Pruitt SL,
    2. Lee SJ,
    3. Tiro JA,
    4. Xuan L,
    5. Ruiz JM,
    6. Inrig S
    . Residential racial segregation and mortality among black, white, and Hispanic urban breast cancer patients in Texas, 1995 to 2009. Cancer 2015;121:1845–55.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Landrine H,
    2. Corral I
    . Separate and unequal: residential segregation and black health disparities. Ethn Dis 2009;19:179–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Walton E
    . Residential segregation and birth weight among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. J Health Soc Behav 2009;50:427–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Jones C
    . The impact of racism on health. Ethn Dis 2002;12:S2-10-3.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    1. Berenson AB,
    2. Rahman M,
    3. Hirth JM,
    4. Rupp RE,
    5. Sarpong KO
    . A brief educational intervention increases providers' human papillomavirus vaccine knowledge. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2015;11:1331–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    Community Preventive Services Task Force. The guide to community preventive services. Increasingappropriate vaccination [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): the Task Force. Available from: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/vaccines/index.html.
  68. 68.↵
    1. Moss JL,
    2. Reiter PL,
    3. Dayton A,
    4. Brewer NT
    . Increasing adolescent immunization by webinar: a brief provider intervention at federally qualified health centers. Vaccine 2012;30:4960–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Perkins RB,
    2. Zisblatt L,
    3. Legler A,
    4. Trucks E,
    5. Hanchate A,
    6. Gorin SS
    . Effectiveness of a provider-focused intervention to improve HPV vaccination rates in boys and girls. Vaccine 2015;33:1223–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Reiter PL,
    2. Stubbs B,
    3. Panozzo CA,
    4. Whitesell D,
    5. Brewer NT
    . HPV and HPV vaccine education intervention: effects on parents, healthcare staff, and school staff. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:2354–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Kawachi I,
    2. Berkman L
    . Social Cohesion, Social Capital, and Health. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 174–90.
  72. 72.↵
    1. Logan J,
    2. Alba R,
    3. McNulty T,
    4. Fisher B
    . Making a place in the metropolis: locational attainment in cities and suburbs. Demography 1996;33:443–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Martin ME
    . Residential segregation patterns of Latinos in the United States, 1990–2000: testing the ethnic enclave and inequality theories. New York: Routledge; 2007.
  74. 74.↵
    1. Massey DS,
    2. Fischer MJ
    . How segregation concentrates poverty. Ethnic Racial Stud 2000;23:670–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    1. Anderson LM,
    2. Wood DL,
    3. Sherbourne CD
    . Maternal acculturation and childhood immunization levels among children in Latino families in Los Angeles. Am J Public Health 1997;87:2018–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Crawford ND,
    2. Blaney S,
    3. Amesty S,
    4. Rivera AV,
    5. Turner AK,
    6. Ompad DC,
    7. et al.
    Individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics associated with support of in-pharmacy vaccination among ESAP-registered pharmacies: pharmacists' role in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccinations in New York City. J Urban Health 2011;88:176–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Krieger N,
    2. Waterman P,
    3. Chen JT,
    4. Soobader MJ,
    5. Subramanian SV,
    6. Carson R
    . Zip code caveat: bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas–the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1100–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 25 (2)
February 2016
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Geographic Factors and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Initiation among Adolescent Girls in the United States
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Geographic Factors and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Initiation among Adolescent Girls in the United States
Kevin A. Henry, Antoinette M. Stroup, Echo L. Warner and Deanna Kepka
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2016 (25) (2) 309-317; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0658

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Geographic Factors and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Initiation among Adolescent Girls in the United States
Kevin A. Henry, Antoinette M. Stroup, Echo L. Warner and Deanna Kepka
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2016 (25) (2) 309-317; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0658
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Disclaimer
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Early-Life Risk Factors for Breast Cancer
  • Sugary Drink Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk
  • HPV Testing in Self-samples and Urine
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement