4.5 Article

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Uptake, Predictors of Vaccination, and Self-Reported Barriers to Vaccination

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages 1679-1686

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1329

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake, predictors of vaccination, and barriers to vaccination in young women. Methods: Participants were 13-26-year-old girls and women recruited from an urban, hospital-based clinic. Between June and December 2007, 6 months after they had completed a baseline survey, they were recontacted to assess receipt of at least one HPV vaccine dose and barriers to receiving the vaccine. We assessed whether demographic factors, gynecological history, and attitudes measured at baseline were associated with vaccination at follow-up using logistic regression. Results: Of the 262 women who completed the baseline study, 189 (72%) participated in this follow-up study. At follow-up, 68 of 189 (36%) had received >= 1 HPV vaccine dose. Factors measured at baseline that predicted vaccination 6 months later included insurance coverage for HPV vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 5.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-17.49) and the belief that one's parents, partners, and clinicians endorsed HPV vaccination (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.29-3.79); those with a history of an abnormal Pap test were less likely to have received the vaccine (OR 0.30, CI 0.10-0.92). Of the 121 who were unvaccinated, 54 (45%) had not returned to the clinic since the baseline study, 51 (42%) had returned but were not offered vaccine, and 15 (12%) had declined vaccination. Conclusions: Interventions to increase HPV vaccination rates in women in the catch-up age group for vaccination should ensure that vaccine costs are covered, promote HPV vaccination as normative, and establish clinic-based systems to prevent missed opportunities for vaccination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available