HPV vaccine acceptance in males

Background Despite Human Papillomavirus (HPV)’s impact on the health of both sexes, there is debate around the inclusion of males in HPV vaccination programmes. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize the evidence on vaccine acceptability to males. Given that the vaccine is most effective in adolescent males, vaccine acceptance in parents and health care professionals (HCPs) was also examined. Method A rapid synthesis using specified key words of published systematic reviews into vaccine acceptability in adolescent males, parents and HCPs was conducted. The most common electronic databases were searched including: Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. Results There was variability amongst studies with respect to design and methodological approaches. Despite this there appears to be a positive attitude towards male HPV vaccination from both parents and older males. There is currently insufficient evidence on vaccine acceptance to adolescent males. Understanding the risks involved in HPV acquisition, and receiving a recommendation from a HCP, appear to be the major factors involved in males deciding to be vaccinated. Parents consistently report the importance of a HCP recommendation, yet HCPs (in the US) appear to have a preference for vaccinating older than younger adolescents, and for vaccinating females. Conclusions The absence of an agreed definition of vaccine acceptance leads to a lack of a universally accepted tool for its measurement. This makes comparison of studies difficult. With no established theoretical framework the identification and exploration of factors that influence vaccine uptake can be variable. In addition, acceptance is not indicative of uptake. The majority of studies are cross-sectional which makes the identification of factors that lead to actual vaccine uptake difficult. Prospective, longitudinal studies identifying individuals that acted on vaccine intention should be conducted to identify the factors that mediate the uptake.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.

METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase the use of traffic light food labelling in UK shoppers (the FLICC trial)

Background: Traffic light labelling of foods—a system that incorporates a colour-coded assessment of the level of total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt on the front of packaged foods—has been recommended by the UK Government and is currently in use or being phased in by many UK manufacturers and retailers. This paper describes a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention designed to increase the use of traffic light labelling during real-life food purchase decisions.

Methods/design: The objectives of this two-arm randomised controlled pilot trial are to assess recruitment, retention and data completion rates, to generate potential effect size estimates to inform sample size calculations for the main trial and to assess the feasibility of conducting such a trial. Participants will be recruited by email from a loyalty card database of a UK supermarket chain. Eligible participants will be over 18 and regular shoppers who frequently purchase ready meals or pizzas. The intervention is informed by a review of previous interventions encouraging the use of nutrition labelling and the broader behaviour change literature. It is designed to impact on mechanisms affecting belief and behavioural intention formation as well as those associated with planning and goal setting and the adoption and maintenance of the behaviour of interest, namely traffic light label use during purchases of ready meals and pizzas. Data will be collected using electronic sales data via supermarket loyalty cards and web-based questionnaires and will be used to estimate the effect of the intervention on the nutrition profile of purchased ready meals and pizzas and the behavioural mechanisms associated with label use. Data collection will take place over 48 weeks. A process evaluation including semi-structured interviews and web analytics will be conducted to assess feasibility of a full trial.

Discussion: The design of the pilot trial allows for efficient recruitment and data collection. The intervention could be generalised to a wider population if shown to be feasible in the main trial.

Gramsci, austerity common sense and the attacks on the welfare state: The need to understand and resist the imposition of the global neoliberal agenda and the role of the social work profession.

During the last 30 years governments almost everywhere in the world are furthering a global neoliberal agenda by withdrawing the state from the delivery of services, decreasing social spending and lowering corporate taxation etc. This restructuring has led to a massive transfer of wealth from the welfare state and working class people into capital. In order to legitimize this restructuring conservative governments engage in collective blaming towards their denizens. This presentation will examine some of the well circulated phrases that have been used by the dominant elite in some countries during the last year to legitimize the imposition of austerity measures. Phrases such as, ‘We all partied’ used by the Irish finance minister, Brian Lenihan, to explain the Irish crisis and collectively blame all Irish people, ‘We must all share the pain’, deployed by another Irish Minister Gilmore and the UK coalition administration’s sound bite ‘We are all in this together’, legitimize the imposition of austerity measures. Utilizing the Gramscian concept of common sense (Gramsci, 1971), I call these phrases ‘austerity common sense’. They are austerity common sense because they both reflect and legitimate the austerity agenda. By deploying these phrases, the ruling economic and political elite seek to influence the perception of the people and pre-empt any intention of resistance. The dominant theme of these phrases is that there is no alternative and that austerity measures are somehow self-inflicted and, as such, should not be challenged because we are all to blame. The purpose of this presentation is to explore the “austerity common sense” theme from a Gramscian approach, focus on its implications for the social work profession and discuss the ways to resist the imposition of the global neoliberal agenda.

Intentions Toward Physical Activity and Resting Behavior in Pregnant Women: Using the Theory of Planned Behavior Framework in a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are recommended to 1) perform daily moderate-intensity physical activity and 2) limit the amount of sedentary time. Many women do not meet these recommendations. Reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior may result from women actively intending to rest during pregnancy. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been used to assess attitudes (e.g., positive/negative beliefs), subjective norms (e.g., perception of others' views), perceived behavioral control (PBC) (e.g., self-efficacy), and intention toward exercising while pregnant but has not been applied to aspects pertaining to resting during pregnancy.

METHODS: Pregnant women (n = 345) completed a cross-sectional questionnaire that included two TPB Questionnaires where the target behaviors were 1) being physically active and 2) resting. Bootstrapped paired t tests, ANOVA, and linear hierarchal regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of intentions and whether intentions toward the two behaviors varied at different stages of pregnancy.

RESULTS: As women progressed in their pregnancy, their attitude, PBC, and intention toward being physically active all significantly declined. A positive attitude, subjective norms, and intention toward resting all significantly increased with the advancing trimester. Self-reported health conditions predicted lower intention for physical activity but not for resting.

DISCUSSION: The significantly inverse relationship between physical activity and resting across time suggests that women feel they should focus on one behavior at the expense of the other. Finding that women generally do not perceive these behaviors as mutually compatible has implications in strategizing as to how to encourage women to be active during pregnancy.

An evaluation of the Socrative (personal response system) app for increasing student engagement and learning in an undergraduate psychology curriculum.

Personal response systems using hardware such as 'clickers' have been around for some time, however their use is often restricted to multiple choice questions (MCQs) and they are therefore used as a summative assessment tool for the individual student. More recent innovations such as 'Socrative' have removed the need for specialist hardware, instead utilising web-based technology and devices common to students, such as smartphones, tablets and laptops. While improving the potential for use in larger classrooms, this also creates the opportunity to pose more engaging open-response questions to students who can 'text in' their thoughts on questions posed in class. This poster will present two applications of the Socrative system in an undergraduate psychology curriculum which aimed to encourage interactive engagement with course content using real-time student responses and lecturer feedback. Data is currently being collected and result will be presented at the conference.
The first application used Socrative to pose MCQs at the end of two modules (a level one Statistics module and level two Individual Differences Psychology module, class size N≈100), with the intention of helping students assess their knowledge of the course. They were asked to rate their self-perceived knowledge of the course on a five-point Likert scale before and after completing the MCQs, as well as their views on the value of the revision session and any issues that had with using the app. The online MCQs remained open between the lecture and the exam, allowing students to revisit the questions at any time during their revision.
This poster will present data regarding the usefulness of the revision MCQs, the metacognitive effect of the MCQs on student's judgements of learning (pre vs post MCQ testing), as well as student engagement with the MCQs between the revision session and the examination. Student opinions on the use of the Socrative system in class will also be discussed.
The second application used Socrative to facilitate a flipped classroom lecture on a level two 'Conceptual Issues in Psychology' module, class size N≈100). The content of this module requires students to think critically about historical and contemporary conceptual issues in psychology and the philosophy of science. Students traditionally struggle with this module due to the emphasis on critical thinking skills, rather than simply the retention of concrete knowledge. To prepare students for the written examination, a flipped classroom lecture was held at the end of the semester. Students were asked to revise their knowledge of a particular area of Psychology by assigned reading, and were told that the flipped lecture would involve them thinking critically about the conceptual issues found in this area. They were informed that questions would be posed by the lecturer in class, and that they would be asked to post their thoughts using the Socrative app for a class discussion. The level of preparation students engaged in for the flipped lecture was measured, as well as qualitative opinions on the usefulness of the session. This poster will discuss the level of student engagement with the flipped lecture, both in terms of preparation for the lecture, and engagement with questions posed during the lecture, as well as the lecturer's experience in facilitating the flipped classroom using the Socrative platform.