4.6 Article

Cervical, screening rates for women vaccinated against human papillomavirus

期刊

MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA
卷 201, 期 5, 页码 279-282

出版社

AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD
DOI: 10.5694/mja14.00021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Victorian Department of Health
  2. VCS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare cervical screening rates for women vaccinated with a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine with those for unvaccinated women, to address concerns that vaccinated women may not be participating in cervical screening. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional analysis of linked data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry and the National HPV Vaccination Program Register for 20-29-year-old women in Victoria, Australia, for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011. Main outcome measures: Screening participation rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated women. Results: Participation in cervical screening during the 2-year period 2010-2011 was significantly lower in 20-24-year-old vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women of the same age (37.6% v 47.7%, a 10.1 percentage point difference [95% CI, 9.7-10.6]; P< 0.001) and significantly lower in 25-29-year-old vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women of the same age (45.2% v 58.7%, a 13.5 percentage point difference [95% CI, 13.1%-13.9%]; P< 0.001). Similar results were observed for participation during the 3-year period 2009-2011. Conclusions: Despite education messages provided to young women, our results suggest that vaccinated women are being screened at tower rates than unvaccinated women in Australia. While some degree of undermatching of women in the study may have occurred, this cannot wholly explain our findings. Effective implementation of Individual Healthcare Identifiers to health records, including registry records, is needed to prevent potential undermatching of individuals in future linkage studies. In the meantime, efforts to increase participation in cervical screening by vaccinated women are needed.

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