This descriptive phenomenological study was carried out at Kabompo Hospital Affiliated Health Centre in Kabompo district, North-Western Province, Zambia, between June and August 2025. Twenty parents and legal guardians of girls aged 9–14 years were purposively recruited using maximum variation sampling to capture diverse perspectives. Interviews were conducted in English or Luvale, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.
Transcribed interviews were analysed using Colaizzi’s seven-step method with QDA Miner Lite. The analytic process generated five principal themes describing how parents perceive and decide about the HPV vaccine for their daughters. The study adhered to relevant ethical approvals from the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (UNZABREC), and participant consent procedures were followed as reported by the authors.
By 2024, only 59% of eligible girls in Kabompo had received the HPV vaccine, a coverage level the authors note falls short of global targets for primary prevention of cervical cancer. The low coverage in this rural, ethnically diverse district provided the rationale for qualitative inquiry into parental perceptions and the determinants of vaccine uptake.
Five themes emerged from the interviews: knowledge and awareness of HPV and its vaccine; perceptions of safety and efficacy; sociocultural and religious influences; the role of health workers; and barriers to access. Each theme reflects factors that either promoted acceptance or limited actual vaccination of eligible girls.
Most parents recognised that the vaccine is intended to prevent cervical cancer, but detailed understanding was limited. Few participants could explain how HPV causes cancer or accurately recall the recommended dosing schedule. Several parents reported first learning about the vaccine only when they encountered it at a health service point, indicating gaps in proactive community-level information prior to clinic encounters.
Concerns about safety were prominent. Fear that the vaccine could cause infertility was the most frequently cited worry among participants. Some parents also expressed unease about the vaccine’s novelty, describing it as "too new" to be fully trusted. These safety perceptions affected willingness to consent even when respondents acknowledged the vaccine’s potential to prevent cancer.
Sociocultural and religious framings shaped vaccine decisions in multiple ways. Some parents emphasised religious beliefs in divine protection against illness, which reduced perceived need for vaccination. Preference for traditional or herbal remedies was reported as an alternative health approach. Additionally, a concern surfaced that vaccinating young girls might be interpreted as condoning early sexual activity, which influenced hesitancy in some households.
Health workers emerged as the most trusted source of information and were frequently decisive in parental choices. Where health staff provided information and reassurance, parents reported greater readiness to accept vaccination. Nonetheless, the study notes that trust in health workers did not uniformly overcome other barriers or deeply held beliefs.
Practical barriers limited vaccine uptake in this rural setting. Distance to health facilities and transport costs discouraged attendance. Fear of injections was cited as a deterrent for some children and guardians. Incomplete dosing—parents or guardians not returning for subsequent doses—was also reported as a factor reducing full course completion and therefore effective coverage.
Although stated acceptability of the HPV vaccine among participants was generally high, this did not consistently translate into completed vaccination of eligible girls. The authors highlight an intention–behaviour gap: information and expressed approval alone were insufficient to ensure vaccination. This suggests that interventions targeting knowledge may need to be complemented by measures addressing beliefs, logistical access, and community norms to increase uptake.
The authors declare that ethical approvals were obtained from UNZABREC and that participant consent was secured. Primary interview transcripts are not publicly available due to confidentiality and the risk of re-identification; de-identified illustrative excerpts are presented in the manuscript. The article notes that researchers meeting criteria may request access to confidential qualitative data through UNZABREC. The report is a qualitative study with purposive sampling of twenty participants; findings reflect parents’ reported perceptions in this setting and the authors do not claim representativeness beyond the study context.