4.6 Article

Ethnic differences in human papillomavirus awareness and vaccine acceptability

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
卷 63, 期 12, 页码 1010-1015

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.085886

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) awareness and HPV vaccine acceptability have included few non-white participants, making it difficult to explore ethnic differences. This study assessed HPV awareness and HPV vaccine acceptability in a sample of women representing the major UK ethnic minority groups. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to assess awareness of HPV and acceptability of HPV vaccination. Participants were recruited using quota sampling to ensure adequate representation of ethnic minority women: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African and Chinese women (n = 750). A comparison sample of white British women (n = 200) was also recruited. Results: Awareness of HPV was lower among ethnic minority women than among white women (6-18% vs 39% in white women), and this was not explained by generational status or language spoken at home. In a subsample who were mothers (n = 601), ethnicity and religion were strongly associated with acceptability of HPV vaccination. Acceptability was highest among white mothers (63%) and lowest among South Asians (11-25%). Those from non-Christian religions were also less accepting of the vaccine (17-34%). The most common barriers to giving HPV vaccination were a need for more information, sex-related concerns and concern about side-effects. South Asian women were the most likely to cite sex-related concerns, and were also least likely to believe the vaccine would offer their daughters protection. Conclusion: These findings suggest some cultural barriers that could be addressed in tailored information aimed at ethnic minority groups. They also highlight the importance of recording ethnicity as part of HPV vaccine uptake data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据