ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2022
Impact of university students' awareness and attitudes on vaccination practices for human papillomavirus, and perception on self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe burden of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)-associated cancer remains high in developing nations.
aimsTo assess the impact of self-reported awareness and attitudes on vaccination practices, and the perception on self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.
methodsA 12-month survey using purposive sampling of females attending an urban public university was conducted. SPSS version 25 was used to compare the responses for students enrolled in health vs non-health related programmes.
resultsOf the 290 questionnaires distributed, 240 were returned (response rate = 83%) in approximately equal proportion from the faculties of Health Science and Pharmacy (n = 127), and from the Hotel and Tourism, Business Management, and Art and Design (n = 113) faculties. About one-third (28.8%) had completed 3 shots, 19.6% received the first shot, 11.4% had scheduled appointments for first shots while 40.2% were both unvaccinated and had not scheduled any appointment. Most (71%) were aware of the HPV vaccines while 50.5% were unaware that HPV vaccines were also available for men. Students enrolled in health-related programmes were 3.2 times more perceptive to the benefits of vaccination particularly in preventing spread to their partners (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.41, p = 0.006) than their counterparts. A weak-positive correlation was observed between knowledge and vaccination practices (r = 0.2, p = 0.001). The level of knowledge on HPV and its vaccine was greater for health-related (Mdn = 6.5) than for students of non-health related (Mdn = 1.5) programmes (U = 2790.5, p-value = 0.00). Attitudes towards immunisation were influenced by perceived benefits versus risks for side effects, cost barriers, and influences of primarily their doctors and parents. The study was limited in that relationship statuses were used to estimate sexual history as direct questions were unanswered in the pilot survey.
conclusionHPV vaccine uptake for an immunisation-targeted young female population is low despite moderate knowledge levels. It is plausible that the low rates among females enrolled in particularly the non-health programmes were impacted by misperceived vaccine-associated risks, and misconception that testing and vaccination for HPV and cervical cancer were for those married or sexually active. Self-sampling could offer a potential alternative to sampling via pelvic examination, particularly for societies where premarital sex is seen as a taboo.
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.