BackgroundThis study is the first to examine associations between several area-based socioeconomic factors and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among boys in the United States (U.S.).MethodsData from the 2012-2013 National Immunization Survey-Teen restricted-use data were analyzed to examine associations of HPV vaccination initiation (receipt of ≥1 dose) and series completion (receipt of three doses) among boys aged 13-17 years (N = 19,518) with several individual-level and ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) census measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of HPV vaccination initiation and series completion separately.ResultsIn 2012-2013 approximately 27.9% (95% CI 26.6%-29.2%) of boys initiated and 10.38% (95% CI 9.48%-11.29%) completed the HPV vaccine series. Area-based poverty was not statistically significantly associated with HPV vaccination initiation. It was, however, associated with series completion, with boys living in high-poverty areas (≥20% of residents living below poverty) having higher odds of completing the series (AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48) than boys in low-poverty areas (0-4.99%). Interactions between race/ethnicity and ZIP code-level poverty indicated that Hispanic boys living in high-poverty areas had a statistically significantly higher odds of  HPV vaccine initiation (AOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03-1.97) and series completion (AOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.32)  than Hispanic boys in  low-poverty areas. Non-Hispanic Black boys in high poverty areas had higher odds of initiation (AOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.33-3.75) and completion (AOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.06-6.44) than non-Hispanic Black boys in low-poverty areas. Rural/urban residence and population density were also significant factors, with boys from urban or densely populated areas having higher odds of initiation and completion compared to boys living in non-urban, less densely populated areas.ConclusionHigher HPV vaccination coverage in urban areas and among racial/ethnic minorities in areas with high poverty may be attributable to factors such as vaccine acceptance, health-care practices, and their access to HPV vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines to uninsured and under-insured children. Given the low HPV vaccination rates among boys in the U.S., these results provide important evidence to inform public health interventions to increase HPV vaccination.

Background In this study, we used data from the National Immunization Survey‐Teen (NIS‐Teen) to examine HPV vaccination uptake by rural and urban residence defined by ZIP code. Methods We used 2012‐2013 NIS‐Teen data to examine associations of HPV vaccination among teens aged 13‐17 years with ZIP code measures of rural/urban (Rural‐Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes, population density). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of HPV vaccination initiation (≥ 1 dose) and completion (≥ 3 doses). Results HPV vaccination was lower among girls from isolated small rural towns (≥1 dose 51.0%; ≥3 doses 30.0%) and small rural towns (≥1 dose 50.2%; ≥3 doses 26.8%) than among urban girls (≥1 dose 56.0%; ≥3 doses 35.9%). Girls from small rural towns had lower odds of completion (0.74, 95% CI: 0.60‐0.91) than girls from urban areas. HPV vaccination was lower among boys from isolated small rural towns (≥1 dose 17.3%; ≥3 doses 5.31%) and small rural towns (≥1 dose 18.7%; ≥3 doses 5.50%) than those in urban areas (≥1 dose 28.7%; ≥3 doses 10.7%). Boys in isolated small rural towns had statistically significantly lower odds of initiation (0.68, 95% CI: 0.52‐0.88) and completion (0.63, 95% CI: 0.41‐0.97) than urban boys. Girls and boys from high‐poverty rural areas had lower odds of initiation and completion than did their counterparts from high‐poverty urban areas. Conclusion Rural girls had lower odds of completing the HPV vaccine than their urban counterparts. Rural boys had lower odds than urban boys for HPV vaccination initiation and completion.

No abstract

No abstract

Ovarian cancer is the most costly and deadly of the gynecologic malignancies. Financial toxicity from out-of-pocket costs for direct care and medications as well as indirect costs from lost income is a growing challenge in oncology. The aim of this review is to focus on recent financial toxicity literature in the gynecologic oncology sphere and highlight specific issues and challenges regarding financial toxicity in ovarian cancer. Treatment options for ovarian cancer lead to variable costs for patients, and there are risk factors for high financial toxicity unique to gynecologic oncology patients. Identification and prompt intervention for those most at risk can help alleviate financial distress from ovarian cancer care.