Study Population Characteristics. Males and females of any skin type with diagnosis of NLF contour deficiency.
Study Population Characteristics. Parental safety concerns as a reason for non-vaccination were higher for non-recipients of HPV vaccine compared to both MCV4 and Tdap non-recipients across all years 2008 to 2012 (Table 1). The prevalence of safety concerns as the primary reason for not receiving HPV vaccine increased from 5.2% of parents in 2008 to 9.7% of parents in 2012. Safety concerns were cited as the main reason for non-vaccination with MCV4 by 0.5% of parents in 2008 to 1.3% of parents in 2012, and for non-vaccination with Tdap by 0.7% of parents in 2008 to 1.6% of parents in 2012. While common, safety concerns were not the primary reason for lack of HPV vaccination. In 2012, the major reasons parents cited for their adolescents not receiving the HPV vaccine in the next 12 months were the vaccine was not needed or not necessary (23.1%), the vaccine was not recommended (19.4%), lack of knowledge about the vaccine (16.2%), the adolescent was not sexually active (10.1%), and safety concerns about the vaccine (9.7%). These reasons were consistently ranked by parents as the top five reasons why their adolescent will not receive the HPV vaccine across all years 2008 to 2012 (Table 1). Comparison of Safety Concerns between MCV4, Tdap, and HPV Vaccines Table 2 shows the differences in safety concerns between MCV4, Tdap, and HPV vaccines. Among parents of adolescents who received zero HPV vaccines and were not up to date for Tdap, the proportion of parents citing safety concerns as the main reason for non-vaccination was higher for the HPV vaccine compared to Tdap and MCV4 in all years. In all years, HPV safety concerns were cited at least 2.8 times as high as the rate of safety concerns for Tdap and 4.3 times as high as the rate of MCV4 safety concerns.
Study Population Characteristics. Males and females of any skin type with diagnosis of midface volume loss and contour deficiency.
