🚨 The school informs, the doctor convinces: what a survey of 245 parents reveals
🔍💡 HPV vaccination in secondary school: 84% of parents surveyed would recommend the campaign, but the advice of a healthcare professional remains the primary trigger for the decision. 🩺 Concerns about the vaccine's safety remain the main cited barrier.

📌  Since 2023, the HPV vaccination is offered free of charge in secondary schools. This survey gives a voice to parents: what makes them accept, what holds them back, who informed them. It suggests that the school provides good information about the campaign, but has little weight in the decision, which mainly comes from the advice of a healthcare professional. For those who run activities with families, students, or educational teams, it helps to target messages (safety, effectiveness, cancer prevention) and to identify the groups absent from the survey: less educated families, non-French speakers, those distanced from digital technology.

Source :     

📒 School vaccination campaign against the papillomavirus: parental perceptions and determinants of adherence
✍️ Mélanie Vignal — thesis for the State diploma of doctor of medicine (DES in general medicine), University Paris Cité, Faculty of Health, UFR of Medicine. Co-supervision: Dr Adriana Ababii and Prof Serge Gilberg. defended on 25 June 2026; published online on DUMAS (HAL) in September 2026 

📜🔗LINK to the source

1️⃣ Analytical summary

A school campaign to catch up on coverage delay

In 2024, 58.4% of girls and 36.9% of boys aged 15 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, far from the target of 80% in 2030 (data from Public Health France cited on p. 9 and 15). After experiments in the Grand Est and Guyana, a free and non-mandatory campaign has been offered in Year 8 since the start of the 2023 school year (p. 17-19). The thesis surveys parents of secondary school students in the Île-de-France region (6 schools, Paris, Hauts-de-Seine, Val-de-Marne) via an online questionnaire, from May to December 2025. It describes their knowledge, their vaccine confidence, their decision, and their views on the campaign. The study is descriptive: no comparison group or statistical test allows for measuring a specific effect of the campaign (p. 21-26).

What responses from 245 parents reveal

Among the respondents, 82% report having vaccinated their child; 24% of these vaccinations took place as part of the campaign, 55% with the general practitioner (p. 32-33). The advice of a health professional (57%), personal judgement on the usefulness of the vaccine (55%), and health recommendations (50%) are the most cited factors; information from the school is only mentioned by 11% (p. 33). Concerns about the safety of the vaccine are the primary stated barrier (38% of non-vaccinators, n = 17), with the fear of early sexuality remaining marginal (9%) (p. 34). The discussion also includes feedback from French and foreign experiences (Réunion, New Caledonia, Quebec) useful for designing support actions (p. 41-45).

2️⃣ Key points of the document

1️⃣ The school informs about the campaign, it has little weight in the decision

83 % of parents say they were informed about the campaign by the establishment (p. 34), but only 11 % cite school information as a decision factor, compared to 57 % for the advice of a healthcare professional (p. 33). The school seems to play a role as a relay of information rather than persuasion.

2️⃣ The general practitioner remains the main place for vaccination

Among parents who have vaccinated their child, 55 % did so with the general practitioner and 24 % at school (p. 32-33). The general practitioner is also the primary source of knowledge about HPV cited by a professional (42 %), equal to the media (45 %) (p. 29).

3️⃣ A possible but limited leverage effect of the campaign

78 % of parents state that they would have vaccinated their child even without the campaign, 13 % would not, 9 % are undecided (p. 35). The author deduces that the campaign has "probably" alleviated some hesitations; this declarative result does not allow quantifying this effect.

4️⃣ The safety of the vaccine, the first stated barrier

Among the 44 parents who did not vaccinate, safety (38 %), side effects (22 %) and effectiveness (20 %) dominate; the fear of early sexuality concerns 9 % (p. 34). A note of caution: 21 of these parents specify in comments that the child was already vaccinated, indicating a reporting error (p. 33).

5️⃣ Documented multicomponent interventions elsewhere

The discussion reports on programmes combining information for parents, discussions with the school nurse, decision support and follow-ups (Quebec: +7.4 percentage points coverage; La Réunion, PROM-SSCOL: initiation 19.2% versus 2.7%) (p. 43-45). These are results from cited studies, not from the thesis.

3️⃣ Action points for local stakeholders

1️⃣ Involve a caregiver in informing families

The advice of a healthcare professional is the first lever mentioned (p. 33). Plan, during parent meetings or information sessions at the college, for the presence of a school nurse, a doctor or a pharmacist to answer questions, rather than just providing written information.

2️⃣ Focus the messages on safety and efficacy

The reported barriers primarily concern safety, side effects and efficacy (p. 34, p. 40). Prepare short, sourced responses on these three points, for example based on the "key arguments" from INCa (see references), and present the vaccine as a cancer prevention measure (p. 40-41).

3️⃣ Use decision support tools

The thesis cites tools such as soshpv.fr or vaccin-hpv-info.fr, associated with an increase in vaccination intention in a study (p. 39). Highlight them to parents, with a time for discussion, rather than sticking to the paper kit distributed in Year 5 (p. 18).

4️⃣ Reach out to families absent from the survey

The author acknowledges that parents who are not comfortable with digital tools, non -French speakers, or socially disadvantaged are under-represented (p. 36). Plan for translated materials or in easy-to-read format, community support or health mediation, and in-person exchange times for these families.

5️⃣ Reinstate and support the return of parental consent

Obtaining parental consent is described as a difficulty that can impact coverage (p. 43). Take inspiration from the Quebec model: short interview, decision aid email, then a call from the school nurse for forms not returned (p. 44-45).

6️⃣ Train the educational intermediaries

School nurses and teachers are presented as potential intermediaries, whose knowledge about HPV remains sometimes limited (p. 41, p. 43). Offer short training sessions to the educational teams. Unmet need: the study does not explore the perspective of students or that of school teams.

4️⃣ Additional references

Internal Health Practices Resources

Convincing without coercing: the levers of vaccine confidence - https://www.pratiquesensante.com/vaccinations

• and on HPV  https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/tag/hpv-447

External Resources 

• Public Health France (L. Fonteneau), December 2025. Report on the second vaccination campaign against human papillomavirus (HPV) infections conducted in middle schools in 5th grade during the 2024-2025 school year in France. “The update on”, 9 p. — the national data that complements the local survey. santepubliquefrance.fr

• National Cancer Institute, updated March 2026. The key arguments on vaccination against cancers related to human papillomavirus (HPV). A tool for professionals, useful for addressing concerns about safety and effectiveness. cancer.fr

• High Health Authority, 2025. Papillomavirus (HPV): the catch-up vaccination recommended for women and men up to 26 years old. A recommendation that expands the opportunities to vaccinate beyond secondary school. has-sante.fr

5️⃣ Frequently asked questions

1️⃣ Who was surveyed, and how?

245 parents of secondary school students in Year 5, Year 4 or Year 3 from six schools in Île-de-France (four in Paris, one in 92, one in 94), via an anonymous online questionnaire of 23 closed questions, from 20 May to 12 December 2025. Out of 135 schools contacted, 6 have disseminated the questionnaire (p. 21-25).

2️⃣ Do the results apply to all parents?

No. The response rate is estimated at 19%, 84.5% of respondents are mothers and 58% have a degree of level bac+5 or higher. The author notes an under-representation of parents who are not comfortable with technology, non-French speakers or disadvantaged (p. 27-28, p. 36).

3️⃣ How many parents have had their child vaccinated at secondary school?

49 parents, or 24% of those who had their child vaccinated (about 20% of all respondents). The majority (55%) went through the general practitioner (p. 32-33).

4️⃣ What decides parents?

The advice of a healthcare professional (57 %), their own judgement on the usefulness of the vaccine (55 %) and the recommendations of the health authorities (50 %). The information provided by the school is only mentioned by 11 % (p. 33).

5️⃣ Why do some parents refuse?

Mainly out of concern about the safety of the vaccine (38 %), side effects (22 %) or effectiveness (20 %). The fear that the vaccine encourages early sexual activity is rare (9 %). These figures are based on 44 parents and some of the responses seem incorrect (p. 33-34).

6️⃣ Would the parents recommend the campaign?

84 % would recommend it "completely" and 4 % "partially" to their circle; 7 % are reluctant and 5 % undecided. This is the main judgement criterion of the study (p. 24, p. 35).

7️⃣ What actions have proven effective elsewhere?

The discussion mentions programmes combining parent information, meetings with the school nurse, decision support and follow-up phone calls (Quebec), or information and mobile vaccination at secondary school (La Réunion). These are results from other studies (p. 43-45).

6️⃣ Rewriting in Easy to Read and Understand (FALC)

What is this document about?

• The HPV is a very common virus.

• It is mainly transmitted during sexual intercourse.

• It can cause cancers, in girls and in boys.

• A vaccine protects against this virus.

• Since 2023, this vaccine is offered at secondary school, in Year 8.

• It is free. It is not mandatory.

• A medical student asked questions to parents.

• 245 parents from Île-de-France responded.

What parents say

• Many parents have vaccinated their child.

• Most went to their doctor.

• About one in four chose secondary school.

• Parents mainly listen to the advice of healthcare providers.

• Parents who refuse mainly fear for the safety of the vaccine.

• Almost every parent would recommend vaccination in secondary school to their relatives.

To know

• Parents who responded often have long education.

• The results do not therefore represent all families.

• Families that have been less heard need to be better informed.

7️⃣ Cross-sectional analysis — values of Health Practices

• Literacy : The document does not provide a tool suitable for reading levels; it notes the absence of parents with low digital literacy and cites online decision-making aids (p. 36, p. 39).

• Empowerment : Parents are consulted on their perceptions, without being involved in the design or evaluation of the campaign; students are not questioned.

• Participation : No co-construction mechanism is described; the questionnaire has been reviewed by people from the health field and outside health (p. 24).

• Community health : The collective dimension appears through herd immunity and the recommendation among parents (p. 15, p. 35, p. 43), without a community approach described.

• Ethics : The social and digital selection bias is identified by the author (p. 36); it is not corrected in the analysis. CNIL declaration made (p. 25).

• Human rights : Free vaccination at school is presented as means to reduce territorial and social inequalities of access (p. 9, p. 18).

• Intersectorality : The conclusion calls for collaboration between health professionals and educational actors (p. 47).

• Partnership : No formal model; examples of partnerships (IReSP, school nurses in Quebec) are cited in the discussion (p. 42-45).

• Fight against discrimination : Discrimination is not addressed; the under-representation of disadvantaged and non-French-speaking families is recognised as a limitation (p. 36).

8️⃣ Evaluation of the reliability of the resource

Scientific relevance — moderate

Support points: extensive bibliography (84 references, including data for 2025-2026), method and limitations presented transparently, questionnaire published in the appendix, CNIL declaration. Points of caution: descriptive study without a control group or statistical test, unvalidated questionnaire constructed by the author (p. 23), self-selected and highly educated sample, response rate of 19%, 52 incomplete questionnaires excluded (p. 37). The stated objective of "evaluating the impact" of the campaign exceeds what the estimate allows; the results describe reported perceptions. Some internal inconsistencies are noted: contradictory responses on vaccination status (p. 30, p. 33), reference to "Table 4" instead of Table 5 (p. 34), and reading 50.2% of "total confidence" as a favourable majority (p. 39).

Operational relevance — indirect

The document is not an action guide. Its practical interest lies in the described levers and barriers and the synthesis of experiences from school interventions (p. 41-45), which can guide the preparation of information sessions for families. The results concern an urban and privileged audience: their transposition to other territories remains to be verified, as suggested by the author (p. 45).

9️⃣ Strategic hashtags

#healthpractices #HPVvaccination #Papillomavirus #CancerPrevention #SchoolHealth #VaccineHesitancy #HealthPromotion #Parenting

You can support Health Practices: https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/annonces-28/pour-soutenir-pratiques-en-sante-3253

This article was developed in accordance with the Charter for the use of artificial intelligence of Health Practices. Click on the image