ArticleBMC public health2016
How does HPV vaccination status relate to risk perceptions and intention to participate in cervical screening? a survey study.
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between human papillomavirus and chlamydia trachomatis infection risk in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of public health · 2019Pooled it
- Increasing cervical cancer screening participation: a cluster-randomized pilot study at a department of gynaecology.BMC women's health · 2026Trial
- A transversal cross-sectional study of factors related to HPV vaccination status and cancer screening participation among French women aged 25-40.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening among a representative sample of women in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Young Danish HPV vaccinated women's knowledge, barriers and facilitators towards cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- What kind of 'a girls' thing'? Frictions and continuities in the framing and taming of the HPV vaccine in Finland.Sociology of health & illness · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen in several countries will soon be covered by two preventive programmes targeting cervical cancer: HPV vaccination and cervical screening. The HPV vaccines are expected to prevent approximately 70 % of cervical cancers. It has been speculated, that HPV vaccinated women will not attend screening because they falsely think that the vaccine has eliminated their cervical cancer risk. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between HPV vaccination status and perceptions of cervical cancer risk; perceptions of vaccine effect; and intention to participate in cervical screening. Furthermore, to investigate associations between perceptions of cervical cancer risk and intention to participate in cervical screening.
methodsA random sample of Danish women from the birth cohorts 1993-1995 was invited to complete a web-based questionnaire concerning risk perceptions and intentions to participate in cervical screening. Main outcomes were: perceived lifetime-risk of cervical cancer; perceived HPV vaccine effect; and intention to participate in cervical screening.
resultsHPV vaccinated women more often than unvaccinated women intended to participate in screening: adjusted odds ratio (OR) for being HPV vaccinated when intending to participate in screening of 3.89 (95 % CI: 2.50-6.06). HPV vaccinated women perceived cervical cancer risk to be higher than unvaccinated women did: adjusted OR of 0.11 (95 % CI: 0.03-0.39) and 0.51 (95 % CI: 0.33-0.78) for being HPV vaccinated while having the lowest perception of risk (in two different pre-specified dichotomisations). HPV vaccinated women perceived the vaccine effect to be larger than unvaccinated women did: adjusted OR of 0.31 (95 % CI: 0.18-0.51) and 0.37 (95 % CI: 0.25-0.53) for being HPV vaccinated while having the lowest perception of vaccine effect (in two different pre-specified dichotomisations). There were no associations between perceived cervical cancer risk and intention to participate in screening.
conclusionsHPV vaccinated women more often than unvaccinated women intended to participate in screening and they perceived cervical cancer risk to be higher and the vaccine effect to be larger than unvaccinated women did. However, in our analyses, risk perceptions could not explain screening intentions neither among vaccinated nor among unvaccinated women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.