↓ Skip to main content

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop and Adapt Two Educational Interventions for Parents to Increase HPV Vaccination Among Hispanic Adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Intervention Mapping to Develop and Adapt Two Educational Interventions for Parents to Increase HPV Vaccination Among Hispanic Adolescents
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena A. Rodriguez, Angelica M. Roncancio, Lara S. Savas, Diana M. Lopez, Sally W. Vernon, Maria E. Fernandez

Abstract

Introduction: Effective interventions to increase HPV vaccination are needed to reach national vaccination goals and to reduce later HPV-related cancer disparities. We used Intervention Mapping (IM) to develop and adapt a theory- and evidence-based educational intervention targeting parents of Hispanic adolescents to increase HPV vaccination. Methods: We followed IM steps 1-6 to: (1) develop a logic model and identify modifiable factors associated with vaccination among Hispanic adolescents by conducting literature reviews, focus groups, and in-depth interviews with Hispanic parents; (2) develop outcomes, write performance objectives, and develop a matrix of change objectives; (3) develop and identify a program theme, program components, theoretical methods, and practical applications; (4) develop an intervention design plan; (5) develop implementation strategies; and (6) develop an evaluation plan. We completed Steps 1-6 for to develop an intervention targeting parents of females, and we followed the steps again to adapt the program once HPV vaccine recommendations included males. Results: The program Por Nuestras Hijas (For Our Daughters) included two components: a print fotonovela and a tailored interactive multimedia intervention (TIMI). The program utilized the methods tailoring, targeting, framing, anticipated regret, modeling, skill building, and education and counseling to target the following determinants: parental knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, skills, perceived benefits/barriers, perceived susceptibility, perceived norms, and outcome expectations as modifiable factors influencing HPV vaccination. Lay health workers implemented the program in community clinics. A logic model of change guided evaluation planning. We later adapted the outcome and intervention content for parents of Hispanic adolescent males and changed the theme to Por Nuestros Hijos (For Our Children). Throughout the development and adaptation processes, we relied on theory, empirical evidence, and new data to make decisions. Discussion: IM provided a systematic methodology for program development and adaptation. Tasks in each step built upon one another integrating findings from the literature, previous research, qualitative findings, and theory to develop two educational programs for parents to increase HPV vaccination. The systematic process allowed us to develop messages and materials targeting factors beyond HPV knowledge or awareness to create behavior change.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 35 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Psychology 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 38 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,733,923
of 26,435,181 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,848
of 14,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,114
of 345,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#29
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,435,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.