4.2 Article

Outreach Hepatitis B Vaccination of Female Sex Workers in Central-West Brazil: Immunization Status, Compliance, and Immune Response

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000048

关键词

female sex worker; hepatitis B; vaccination

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico-CNPq [402811/2008-9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the hepatitis B immunization status of female sex workers (FSWs) in Central-West Brazil and to evaluate their compliance with and immune response to hepatitis B vaccination delivered using outreach strategies. Methods: A total of 721 FSWs recruited in 2 large cities in Central-West Brazil were interviewed and screened for the presence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) markers. Hepatitis B vaccine was offered to all women susceptible to HBV, using outreach strategies. The immune response of FSWs who received a full course of vaccine was assessed following the final vaccine dose. Results: We found that 27.6% of FSWs, the majority of whom were aged 18 to 25 years, had serological evidence of previous hepatitis B vaccination. A total of 434 FSWs were eligible for vaccination, 389 (89.6%) of whom accepted the first hepatitis B vaccine dose. Of those, 64% received a second dose and 37.5% received all three doses. Through the outreach strategy, there was a 52.2% increase in the number of women who received the second dose and a 67% increase in the number who received the third dose. Of the 146 women who received a full course of vaccine, 105 accepted testing for quantitative anti-HBs (hepatitis B surface antibody) following the final vaccine dose, and 92.4% of those tested had developed protective levels of anti-HBs. Lower education level, workplace, and length of prostitution were predictors of full-vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: The present findings illustrate the benefits of using outreach strategies to overcome the difficulties of vaccinating hard-to-reach populations such as FSWs.

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

4.2
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