Adolescents are the target group for HPV vaccination. Studies that examine factors influencing acceptability among adolescents and interventions aimed at improving knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, intentions, and, most importantly, vaccination rates are less common than those addressing parents or healthcare professionals. The specialized literature was searched for studies evaluating the impact of various interventions on adolescents. In the final analysis, 41 studies were included (35 original studies and 6 reviews). Educational interventions increased adolescents’ knowledge scores in the selected studies. Peer education proved highly effective in rapidly and significantly improving knowledge about HPV. Additionally, multicomponent interventions generated awareness and knowledge that persisted for months after the interventions. HPV vaccine uptake increased following educational interventions in 11 out of the 14 studies that evaluated this outcome; studies presenting multicomponent interventions also proved effective in improving vaccination rates. Higher HPV vaccine series completion was reported following a reminder system strategy. Interventions directed at adolescents, combined with strategies involving parents and healthcare professionals, can play an important role in improving HPV vaccination rates. Educated adolescents must be involved in decisions about their own health and can be a valuable source of information for their peers and parents.

This study aims to identify the presence of vaccine hesitancy and the factors that could have determined it in a group of mothers in the postpartum period, with an evaluation of both the level of knowledge and information, as well as the attitudes, perceptions, intentions and sources of information about vaccination. The study was based on a survey—Vaccine Hesitancy Identification Survey—applied in two maternity wards from Bihor County and structured into six subscales (34 items). Based on the answers to the key questions (“Which of the following statements best describes your plans for vaccinating your child?”—item 1 of subscale 4; “Overall, how hesitant do you consider yourself to be about vaccinating your child?”—item 4 of subscale 4), we identified two groups: the group of mothers without hesitant behavior (non-hesitant), called the group pro vaccine (GPV), and the group of mothers with hesitant behavior, called the group non vaccine (GNV). Vaccine hesitancy was identified in our study in 47.28% of the participants (191 of the 404 mothers included). Most of them come from an urban environment (57.59%), have university and post-secondary education (58.64%) and are prim parous (58.64%). The behavior of participants from GNV is influenced by a low level of knowledge and information regarding vaccination and by concerns related to adverse reactions, new vaccines and the number of vaccines administered. Also, this group is characterized by an increased perception of the risks related to vaccination, while the perception of the risks associated with the disease is low. For all subscales, important differences were registered between the two groups in favor of GPV, a group characterized by positive attitudes and perceptions and a better level of knowledge compared to GNV. This study aims to represent a starting point for the organization and running of information campaigns regarding vaccination at the level of Bihor County, especially in areas with low vaccination coverage, where this behavior is identified.

Background: Regional HIV data can support surveillance only when the meaning, timing, and completeness of core variables are explicit. We audited a regional HIV registry extract from Bihor County, Northwestern Romania, and described recorded diagnoses during 2013–2023. Methods: The supplied extract contained 192 individual records. Completeness analyses used all records. Annual-count analyses used 154 records with a diagnosis year between 2013 and 2023; 22 records diagnosed before 2013 and 16 with unknown diagnosis year were excluded from temporal analyses. A prespecified recorded advanced-category proxy was defined as CDC stage C and/or immunologic category 3 among records with interpretable A1–C3 staging. Drug indicators were recoded as non-mutually exclusive antiretroviral classes. A Poisson model quantified change in annual recorded counts; it was not interpreted as incidence because population denominators were unavailable. Results: Diagnosis year was available in 176/192 records (91.7%), residence in 149/192 (77.6%), interpretable CDC staging in 119/192 (62.0%), and at least one ART entry in 112/192 (58.3%). Exact diagnosis date, CD4 count, viral load, ART initiation date, retention in care, viral suppression, and transmission route were not represented as dedicated variables in the supplied extract. Annual recorded diagnoses ranged from 6 to 21. There was no evidence of a linear change in annual counts (incidence-rate ratio per year 0.972, 95% CI 0.925–1.022; p = 0.274). Among 119 staged records, 48 (40.3%) met the recorded advanced-category proxy; the timing of staging relative to diagnosis was unknown. NRTI exposure was the most frequently documented ART class, but treatment sequence and current-regimen status could not be reconstructed. Conclusions: The extract supports a data-quality and descriptive audit, not estimates of HIV incidence, confirmed late diagnosis, treatment effectiveness, or the HIV care continuum. Standardized capture of diagnosis date, CD4 count, viral load, staging date, ART initiation and current regimen, transmission route, and follow-up status is required for stronger regional surveillance.