4.5 Article

Examining attitudes and knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer risk among female clinic attendees in Johannesburg, South Africa

期刊

VACCINE
卷 28, 期 50, 页码 8026-8032

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.090

关键词

South Africa; HPV; Cervical cancer prevention

资金

  1. Merck Pharmaceuticals Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Developing countries account for 85% of the nearly 500,000 yearly cases of cervical cancer worldwide with approximately 250,000 deaths occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. In South Africa, cervical cancer is the 3(rd) leading cause of death among women. Although cervical cancer can be screened for with regular Pap tests, access to preventive screenings may be nearly non-existent in resource poor settings that have limited public health infrastructure and where women may lack basic health education. Therefore, it is important to understand women's attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about HPV, cervical cancer, and the HPV vaccine, and assess their access to preventive screening in order to mitigate their risk for developing the disease. Eighty-six women, ages 18-44 with at least one child who presented at an antenatal clinic in a township in Johannesburg were recruited to complete a brief questionnaire. Using both descriptive and multivariate statistics, we assessed knowledge of cervical cancer, HPV, and the vaccine; assessed maternal-child communication about sex and STDs, assessed willingness to vaccinate child; and identified barriers to assessing medical care and the vaccine. The majority of participants were unfamiliar with HPV and cervical cancer, were concerned about their child's and their own risk for HPV and cervical cancer, faced numerous barriers to accessing screening, and were willing to vaccinate their child. Our findings indicate that women in developing countries need increased access to screening and education about HPV and cervical cancer prevention. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据