Friday round-up: HPV vaccine parental acceptance, bird flu vaccine allocation, and more

• The May 2006 issue of Pediatrics includes an interesting study of parental beliefs and attitudes on HPV and HPV vaccination, comparing groups receiving an information sheet on the topic versus those without it. The paper, from Dempsey, et al., is titled "Factors that are associated with parental acceptance of human papillomavirus vaccines: A randomized intervention study of written information about HPV." (117:1486-1493; free abstract, subscription required for full text) Their findings, in short: those receiving the information sheet performed better on a knowledge assessment, but there was no statistically significant difference in vaccine acceptability between the two groups. Here's the press release on the paper from the University of Michigan (the lead author's institution.)

• This story from National Geographic's website discusses a paper in the current issue of Science on how best to ration limited vaccine supply in the event of a pandemic. The paper, titled "Who should get influenza vaccine when not all can," is written by Ezekiel Emanuel and Alan Wertheimer of the NIH, though they note the opinions expressed are solely their own. (312:854-855; subscription required for full text.) In the paper, the authors challenge the current plan to allocate limited supplies of vaccine, which they refer to as the 'save-the-most-lives principle.' Their alternative? A modified 'life-cycle principle' that values giving everyone a chance to pass through various life stages while, overall, still maintaining public order. It's an interesting idea, and one that leads to a radically different ranking of which groups would receive vaccines first. Well worth reading.

• Another paper of note in this week's Science: "Is polio eradication realistic?" by Arita, et al. (312:852-854; subscription required). The authors propose that "the time has come for the global strategy for polio to be shifted from 'eradication' to 'effective control.'"