Several studies have been published indicating that risk compensation after HPV vaccination is not a significant issue. Similarly, an increasing number of studies show that HPV vaccine is quite safe, with little or no evidence of severe adverse effects. While safety must continue to be closely monitored, the findings to date should be reassuring to providers, parents, young adults, and adolescents.

Although it is certainly true that parents have the right to refuse vaccination, the “safety” of non-vaccination can be questioned and the risks of non-vaccination can honestly be discussed. Although Pap testing has reduced the incidence of cervical cancer, particularly in industrialized HA-1077 price nations, it is an imperfect approach to prevention with only moderate sensitivity, and cervical cancer rates remain unacceptably high. Furthermore, Pap testing cannot prevent genital warts and anal cancers. HPV vaccine can no longer be considered a “new” vaccine, as one of the vaccines has been licensed in the U.S./Canada for over six years and was carefully evaluated via extensive clinical trials for many years pre-licensure. The major challenge, then, is how to most effectively communicate this information to parents, young adults, adolescents, and HCPs so that higher HPV vaccination rates can be achieved. In the absence of major

HPV vaccination health policy initiatives, such as those implemented in Canada, the U.K., and Australia, a multi-level, multi-faceted approach will SP600125 purchase be required. HCP recommendation is among the most important determinants of HPV vaccination. It is essential, therefore, to focus on Adenosine the education of HCPs regarding indications for HPV vaccination and approaches to communicating most effectively with parents and patients about the safety and benefits of vaccination and the risks associated with non-vaccination. Such educational interventions should be based on established theoretical principles, such as social cognitive theory or diffusion theory (Bandura, 2001 and Rogers, 2004), and should

be empirically evaluated. Two of the authors (GDZ and NWS) are investigators on investigator-initiated grants funded by Merck and Co. GDZ is a recipient of an unrestricted program development grant from GlaxoSmithKline. WAF has received speaker fees, educational, and unrestricted research grants from Merck Canada. ZR has received a fee for consulting with Merck on behavioural science issues. Author SP has no conflicts of interest to report. We would like to thank Leonora Gangadeen-King, who assisted with the literature search that served as a basis for this paper. “
“Bicycling is the least-used mode of transportation in the United States, but more bicycling could yield health and environmental benefits (Pucher and Buehler, 2012 and Pucher et al., 2010a). At 1% of all trips, bicycling rates in the US are among the lowest in the world (Pucher et al., 2010a and Reynolds et al., 2009).