preview

Significance Of The HPV Vaccine

Decent Essays

5. Results. Accuracy and reliability.

Discusses data and results as presented in both tables and texts.
Considers the quality of tables and figures. Assesses the relationship between graphics and text.
Only primary results related to the hypotheses are presented.
Based on a two-page information fact sheet. Data was presented in tables for comparison and interpretation. Titles, legends accurately describe the content. Results RR (95%CI) or M ± SD. RR (95%CI) = relative risk (95% confidence intervals) where RR >1 indicates higher and RR < 1 indicates lower HPV vaccine acceptance. M ± SD = mean ± standard deviation. Intervention: 5.9 ± 3.1, Comparison: 5.7 ± 2.7. No p value was provided. Pre-intervention: 5.8 ± 3.0, Post-intervention: …show more content…

The actual number was intervention 66, with 48 in the comparison group, female (65% vs. 50%; p < .05).
Table 2 highlights respondent attitudes toward flyer intervention, which confirms the text value and table value correspond in the first heading under variable, positive, negative and missing. Not all the information contained in this table is found in the text. The last heading variable, flyer influenced decision to vaccinate daughter, yes response decision shows 44%. This is not accurate to match the text, which claims a 43% in the results section, and abstract.
Table 3 titled themes raised in qualitative questions – the intervention group only provides responses to two questions posed in the survey. None of the result figures in the table 3 were mentioned in the text results section. Only generalizations were made about how the flyer could be improved and those who were influenced by the flyer in a positive way (n = 38/90; 42%) versus (n = 52/90; 58%). More respondents were not actually influenced by the flyer, which contradicts the authors claim and assertions in the whole article. They actually preferred safety and testing, advice from health care providers, while a significant response fell into nothing 21%, miscellaneous 8% and more information.
Table 4. They found no difference in HPV vaccination intention between the experimental and control conditions. Intervention 5.9 +3.1 control: 5.7 + 2.7, with

Get Access