Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40823373›Full record

ArticleGerms2025

HPV vaccine-related myths encountered in Romanian clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of family doctors.

Gheorghe Gindrovel Dumitra, Carmen-Adriana Dogaru, Sandra Adalgiza Alexiu, Dorica Sănduţu, Cosmina Berbecel, Monica Curelea, Cristina Vasilica Barbu, Anca Deleanu, Adrian Grom, Maria Lup and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Germs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Gheorghe Gindrovel DumitraMD, PhD, Family Medicine Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Street, 200349, Craiova, Romania and Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Carmen-Adriana DogaruMD, PhD, Family Medicine Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Street, 200349, Craiova, Romania and Child Health Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Sandra Adalgiza AlexiuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Dorica SănduţuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Cosmina BerbecelMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Monica CureleaMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Cristina Vasilica BarbuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Anca DeleanuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Adrian GromMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Maria LupMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Ioana BudiuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Mădălina VesaMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Florin ProşaMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Daniela ŞtefănescuMD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania.
Roxana SurugiuMD, PhD, Biochemistry Department, University of Medicine, and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2 Petru Rares Street, 200349, Craiova, Romania.
Ştefana Oana PopescuMD, PhD, Biochemistry Department, University of Medicine, and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2 Petru Rares Street, 200349, Craiova, Romania.
Anca LăcătuşMD, PhD, Immunization Working Group, Romanian National Society of Family Medicine, 65, Popa Nan Street, Bucharest, Romania and Faculty of Medicine, Transylvania University of Brasov, 500036, Braşov, Romania.
Mihaela Adela IancuMD, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474, Bucharest, Romania.
Adina Turcu-StiolicaMD, PhD, Pharmacoeconomics Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Street, 200349, Craiova, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination is a key strategy for preventing HPV-related cancers, yet vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge due to persistent myths and misconceptions. This study aimed to identify the most frequently encountered HPV vaccine-related myths in clinical practice from the perspective of family doctors and to assess differences in their prevalence between urban and rural populations. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among family doctors in Romania who reported common myths encountered when discussing HPV vaccination with parents and women eligible for catch-up vaccination. The analysis focused on identifying the most prevalent perceived myths and assessing differences between urban and rural settings, age groups and genders, using Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by post-hoc Dunn's tests with Holm correction to account for multiple comparisons, as well as Chi-square tests. Results: The most frequently reported myths overall were "The HPV vaccine is only for girls" (mean score±SD, 2.91±1.27), "The HPV vaccine has severe and long-term side effects" (mean score±SD, 2.83±1.27), and "There are too many new vaccines" (mean score±SD, 2.77±1.3). Rural respondents reported significantly higher belief in concerns related to vaccine safety, effectiveness, increasing number of vaccines, necessity in monogamous individuals, fear of injections, and concerns about promiscuity, particularly in their perception of parents of adolescent girls. Conclusions: Family doctors consider that persistent myths continue to fuel vaccine hesitancy, especially in rural areas. Strengthening family doctors' communication skills through motivational interviewing and evidence-based counseling is essential. Public health efforts should focus on targeted educational interventions and social prescription tools to improve vaccine acceptance and reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases.

Indexed as

family doctorshealth communicationHPV vaccinationpublic health interventionsrural-urban differencesvaccine myths

Identifiers

PMID40823373
PMCPMC12356345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.