4.3 Article

Change in knowledge of women about cervix cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and HPV vaccination due to introduction of HPV vaccines

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.003

Keywords

Knowledge; Awareness; Acceptance; Attitude; Human papilloma virus; High risk HPV; Cervical cancer; Vaccination; Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Test knowledge of HPV, cervix cancer awareness and acceptance of HPV vaccination of women now and a year ago. Study design: Questionnaires were filled out by 305 women visiting four gynaecologists of the Regional Hospital Heilig Hart, Tienen, Belgium during two subsequent weeks. Fisher T or Chi(2) were used as statistical methods to compare the data with the survey of 381 women exactly one year before. Results: Knowledge about HPV as a cause of cervix cancer and the presence of a vaccine rose from roughly 50% in 2007 to over 80% in 2008 (p < 0.0001). Level of education and having daughters, sons or no children no longer influenced the level of knowledge or willingness to accept the vaccine. Most parents favor the age group 12-16 years as an ideal time for vaccination. In contrast with the 2007 survey, women below 26 years had now acquired almost equivalent knowledge to older women about the virus, cervix cancer and the vaccine, but they were far less likely to accept the vaccine due to its cost, unless it would be reimbursed (OR 4.2 (1.6-11) p = 0.0055). Conclusion: One year after introduction of the first two HPV vaccines, over 75% of women attending an ambulatory gynaecology clinic know HPV causes cervix cancer and that you can get vaccinated against it. Compared with a year earlier, young and lower educated women had dramatically improved their knowledge. However, women below 26 years are less prepared to pay the cost for vaccination if it is not reimbursed. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available