, 2005) and results in a stronger immune response in younger versus older adolescents (Dobson et al., 2013). There is evidence, as well, that HPV vaccine induces robust immune memory (Olsson et al., 2007) VE-821 molecular weight and that sufficient antibody levels may last for at least 12 years and perhaps much longer in most vaccinated individuals (Fraser et al., 2007). Evidence has also suggested that, if needed, an additional dose of vaccine administered years after the initial series may boost the sustained effectiveness of vaccination (Olsson et al., 2007). A communication challenge posed by HPV vaccination is that while both

vaccines are very efficacious, they do not protect against all types of HPV responsible for cervical and other anogenital cancers. This kind of complexity (high efficacy against vaccine types, but more modest efficacy when the whole range of oncogenic HPV is considered)

may be difficult to communicate in a health care setting and difficult for parents to understand. Visual aids, such as the use of charts and graphs, may help to most effectively deliver this kind of information (Chua et al., 2006). In the context of such communication, the need for sexually active females who have been vaccinated to nonetheless have periodic cervical cancer screening must remain Imatinib in vivo an emphasis. Although the strong evidence for efficacy and safety of HPV vaccine dispels many concerns that have been associated with a new vaccine, it is also important to note that HPV vaccine has been licensed in the U.S. and Canada since 2006 and in Australia since 2007 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007, Garland and Smith, 2010 and National Advisory Committee on Immunization, 2012). Clinicians who are influential in vaccine uptake, therefore, should no longer consider this vaccine new. Content analysis studies about the media’s representation of the HPV vaccine demonstrate that the

tone associated with the vaccine is inconsistent, ranging from negative to neutral to positive (Briones et al., 2012, Habel et al., 2009 and Keelan et al., 2010). Unfortunately, it is often the unrealistic, negative vaccine fears that become salient to MRIP the public, which then tends to sensationalize potential side effects of vaccination. These rumors then filter down to adolescents and become further exaggerated (Brabin et al., 2009). In order to overcome this type of misinformation, clinicians and public health officials need to advocate for more accurate vaccine information and evidence-based media coverage (Cooper et al., 2008). Further, using social media tools (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) is another key strategy to disseminate accurate information and dispel some of misinformation that is spread by the anti-vaccine movement (Betsch et al., 2012 and Keelan et al., 2010).