Acceptability of the txt2protect HPV vaccination intervention: themes from open-ended feedback and illustrative quotes
| . | n (%)a . | Illustrative quotes . |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability at 3 week follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 53 (76) | Lots of useful information that I didn’t know before, brought up sensitive topics in a respectful and appropriate way |
| Convenience | 9 (13) | The convenience of short bursts of information sent to my phone as text messages that I would prioritize reading—as compared to a long article or something, reading a little bit everyday helps out. |
| Message quality | 13 (19) | I really liked the Q&A setup of the texts. They were super informative and I learned a lot. |
| Other | 14 (20) | I like that it provided constant information and reminders. It always had me thinking about the topic. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 29 (41) | Nothing |
| Message deliveryd | 34 (49) | When the texts came at a bad time (while I was working or in a meeting) I would forget to review them until then next batch came through. If I could choose when I would receive them it might be easier. |
| Concerns about content | 5 (7) | Some of the info felt like it could’ve been condensed. |
| Other | 3 (4) | Nothing, some might learn better from adding visuals. |
| Acceptability at 9 month follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 46 (70) | I thought t2p was very informative. I learned a lot about all STDs, specifically the statistics surrounding each one. I appreciated the friendly yet objective and nonjudgmental tone of the messages. |
| Convenience | 4 (6) | It was easy to keep up with. |
| Consistency/frequency | 6 (9) | The pace and pacing of it. It’s short and factual knowledge delivered effectively. |
| Other | 21 (32) | I liked that it gave me reminders on when to schedule my HPV vaccines and held me accountable. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 22 (33) | I can’t really think of any negatives. |
| Message deliveryd | 30 (46) | It was harder to stay engaged in the program once it switched to messaging every few weeks as opposed to every day. |
| Concerns about content | 3 (5) | Because I am in a monogamous relationship, I felt like some info didn’t apply to me, or assumed that I had multiple sexual partners. While this could’ve applied better to me at other times in my life, it didn’t always feel relevant now. |
| Surveys | 3 (5) | Some of the forms could be tedious. |
| Other | 10 (15) | I would not change much. Maybe just more communication/reminders in the latter half of the project. |
| . | n (%)a . | Illustrative quotes . |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability at 3 week follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 53 (76) | Lots of useful information that I didn’t know before, brought up sensitive topics in a respectful and appropriate way |
| Convenience | 9 (13) | The convenience of short bursts of information sent to my phone as text messages that I would prioritize reading—as compared to a long article or something, reading a little bit everyday helps out. |
| Message quality | 13 (19) | I really liked the Q&A setup of the texts. They were super informative and I learned a lot. |
| Other | 14 (20) | I like that it provided constant information and reminders. It always had me thinking about the topic. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 29 (41) | Nothing |
| Message deliveryd | 34 (49) | When the texts came at a bad time (while I was working or in a meeting) I would forget to review them until then next batch came through. If I could choose when I would receive them it might be easier. |
| Concerns about content | 5 (7) | Some of the info felt like it could’ve been condensed. |
| Other | 3 (4) | Nothing, some might learn better from adding visuals. |
| Acceptability at 9 month follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 46 (70) | I thought t2p was very informative. I learned a lot about all STDs, specifically the statistics surrounding each one. I appreciated the friendly yet objective and nonjudgmental tone of the messages. |
| Convenience | 4 (6) | It was easy to keep up with. |
| Consistency/frequency | 6 (9) | The pace and pacing of it. It’s short and factual knowledge delivered effectively. |
| Other | 21 (32) | I liked that it gave me reminders on when to schedule my HPV vaccines and held me accountable. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 22 (33) | I can’t really think of any negatives. |
| Message deliveryd | 30 (46) | It was harder to stay engaged in the program once it switched to messaging every few weeks as opposed to every day. |
| Concerns about content | 3 (5) | Because I am in a monogamous relationship, I felt like some info didn’t apply to me, or assumed that I had multiple sexual partners. While this could’ve applied better to me at other times in my life, it didn’t always feel relevant now. |
| Surveys | 3 (5) | Some of the forms could be tedious. |
| Other | 10 (15) | I would not change much. Maybe just more communication/reminders in the latter half of the project. |
Open-ended responses were provided by 70 participants at 3 week follow-up and 66 participants at 9 month follow-up. The table is limited to responses from intervention condition participants.
aNumber (percentage) of participants in the intervention condition whose comment reflected this theme. Comments were assigned multiple codes as necessary.
bCommon themes in response to the question: “What did you like about t2p?”
cCommon themes in response to the questions: “What did you dislike about t2p? What could be improved?”
dCode reflects concerns or suggestions related to the quantity, frequency, or timing of messages.
Acceptability of the txt2protect HPV vaccination intervention: themes from open-ended feedback and illustrative quotes
| . | n (%)a . | Illustrative quotes . |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability at 3 week follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 53 (76) | Lots of useful information that I didn’t know before, brought up sensitive topics in a respectful and appropriate way |
| Convenience | 9 (13) | The convenience of short bursts of information sent to my phone as text messages that I would prioritize reading—as compared to a long article or something, reading a little bit everyday helps out. |
| Message quality | 13 (19) | I really liked the Q&A setup of the texts. They were super informative and I learned a lot. |
| Other | 14 (20) | I like that it provided constant information and reminders. It always had me thinking about the topic. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 29 (41) | Nothing |
| Message deliveryd | 34 (49) | When the texts came at a bad time (while I was working or in a meeting) I would forget to review them until then next batch came through. If I could choose when I would receive them it might be easier. |
| Concerns about content | 5 (7) | Some of the info felt like it could’ve been condensed. |
| Other | 3 (4) | Nothing, some might learn better from adding visuals. |
| Acceptability at 9 month follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 46 (70) | I thought t2p was very informative. I learned a lot about all STDs, specifically the statistics surrounding each one. I appreciated the friendly yet objective and nonjudgmental tone of the messages. |
| Convenience | 4 (6) | It was easy to keep up with. |
| Consistency/frequency | 6 (9) | The pace and pacing of it. It’s short and factual knowledge delivered effectively. |
| Other | 21 (32) | I liked that it gave me reminders on when to schedule my HPV vaccines and held me accountable. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 22 (33) | I can’t really think of any negatives. |
| Message deliveryd | 30 (46) | It was harder to stay engaged in the program once it switched to messaging every few weeks as opposed to every day. |
| Concerns about content | 3 (5) | Because I am in a monogamous relationship, I felt like some info didn’t apply to me, or assumed that I had multiple sexual partners. While this could’ve applied better to me at other times in my life, it didn’t always feel relevant now. |
| Surveys | 3 (5) | Some of the forms could be tedious. |
| Other | 10 (15) | I would not change much. Maybe just more communication/reminders in the latter half of the project. |
| . | n (%)a . | Illustrative quotes . |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability at 3 week follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 53 (76) | Lots of useful information that I didn’t know before, brought up sensitive topics in a respectful and appropriate way |
| Convenience | 9 (13) | The convenience of short bursts of information sent to my phone as text messages that I would prioritize reading—as compared to a long article or something, reading a little bit everyday helps out. |
| Message quality | 13 (19) | I really liked the Q&A setup of the texts. They were super informative and I learned a lot. |
| Other | 14 (20) | I like that it provided constant information and reminders. It always had me thinking about the topic. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 29 (41) | Nothing |
| Message deliveryd | 34 (49) | When the texts came at a bad time (while I was working or in a meeting) I would forget to review them until then next batch came through. If I could choose when I would receive them it might be easier. |
| Concerns about content | 5 (7) | Some of the info felt like it could’ve been condensed. |
| Other | 3 (4) | Nothing, some might learn better from adding visuals. |
| Acceptability at 9 month follow-up | ||
| Likesb | ||
| Informative content | 46 (70) | I thought t2p was very informative. I learned a lot about all STDs, specifically the statistics surrounding each one. I appreciated the friendly yet objective and nonjudgmental tone of the messages. |
| Convenience | 4 (6) | It was easy to keep up with. |
| Consistency/frequency | 6 (9) | The pace and pacing of it. It’s short and factual knowledge delivered effectively. |
| Other | 21 (32) | I liked that it gave me reminders on when to schedule my HPV vaccines and held me accountable. |
| Dislikes/suggestions for improvementc | ||
| Nothing/not applicable | 22 (33) | I can’t really think of any negatives. |
| Message deliveryd | 30 (46) | It was harder to stay engaged in the program once it switched to messaging every few weeks as opposed to every day. |
| Concerns about content | 3 (5) | Because I am in a monogamous relationship, I felt like some info didn’t apply to me, or assumed that I had multiple sexual partners. While this could’ve applied better to me at other times in my life, it didn’t always feel relevant now. |
| Surveys | 3 (5) | Some of the forms could be tedious. |
| Other | 10 (15) | I would not change much. Maybe just more communication/reminders in the latter half of the project. |
Open-ended responses were provided by 70 participants at 3 week follow-up and 66 participants at 9 month follow-up. The table is limited to responses from intervention condition participants.
aNumber (percentage) of participants in the intervention condition whose comment reflected this theme. Comments were assigned multiple codes as necessary.
bCommon themes in response to the question: “What did you like about t2p?”
cCommon themes in response to the questions: “What did you dislike about t2p? What could be improved?”
dCode reflects concerns or suggestions related to the quantity, frequency, or timing of messages.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
