ArticleBMC women's health2024
Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rate of human papillomavirus vaccination and knowledge of human papillomavirus literacy in secondary school students from Northern Thailand: post COVID-19 era.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the HPV-WAK questionnaire for assessing women's awareness and knowledge in Iran.PloS one · 2026Article
- Knowledge attitude and practice regarding cancer screening among Chinese medical students.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The effect of educational intervention program on knowledge and willingness of medical students to take cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccine: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of family & community medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death among women in Thailand. General practitioners, within their primary healthcare role, play a vital role in the cervical cancer screening program, as they are the healthcare professionals most easily accessible to the general population. This study aims to determine the level of knowledge of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer screening among last-year medical students.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among sixth-year medical students using an electronic self-administered questionnaire. The two-part questionnaire comprised demographic data and 12 true/false questions that assessed knowledge regarding HPV infection, HPV vaccination, and cervical cancer screening recommendations. Pilot testing revealed a high Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability coefficient.
resultsA 67% response rate was achieved. Among the 198 respondents, only one (0.5%) student correctly answered over 80% of the questions while most respondents (172, 71.7%) correctly answered less than 60% of the questions. Less than half of the respondents correctly identified crucial aspects such as the primary cause of cervical cancer, recommended vaccination age, cytology sensitivity compared to HPV testing, and the recommended screening frequency for average-risk women.
conclusionsThis study highlights a significant lack of comprehension among Thai medical students concerning HPV infection, vaccination, and cervical cancer screening guidelines. Encouraging educational enhancement, effective communication, and heightened awareness of these crucial topics within the medical school curriculum are imperative.
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.