4.5 Article

Men who have sex with men who do not access sexual health clinics nor disclose sexual orientation are unlikely to receive the HPV vaccine in the UK

期刊

VACCINE
卷 36, 期 33, 页码 5065-5070

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.075

关键词

HPV; Vaccine; Acceptability; Barriers; MSM; Gay

资金

  1. University of Brighton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are recommended the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination due to their higher risk of genital warts and anal cancer. Purpose: To examine HPV vaccine acceptability amongst MSM in the UK. Methods: Using advertisements via Facebook, MSM were recruited to an online survey measuring motivations for HPV vaccination. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability. Results: Out of 1508 MSM (median age = 22, range: 14-63 years) only 19% knew about HPV. Overall, 55% of MSM were willing to ask for the HPV vaccine and 89% would accept it if offered by a healthcare professional (HCP). Access to sexual health clinics (SHCs) [OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.29-2.89], the disclosure of sexual orientation to a HCP [OR = 2.02, CI 1.39-3.14] and HIV-positive status [OR = 1.96, CI 1.09-3.53] positively predicted HPV vaccine acceptability. After receiving information about HPV, perceptions of HPV risk [OR = 1.31, CI 1.05-1.63], HPV infection severity [OR = 1.89, CI 1.16-3.01), HPV vaccination benefits [OR= 1.61, CI 1.14-3.01], HPV vaccine effectiveness [OR= 1.54, CI 1.14-2.08], and the lack of perceived barriers to HPV vaccination [OR = 4.46, CI 2.95-6.73] were also associated with acceptability. Conclusions: Although nearly half of MSM would not actively pursue HPV vaccination, the vast majority would accept the vaccine if recommended by HCPs. In order to achieve optimal uptake, vaccine promotion campaigns should focus on MSM who do not access SHCs and those unwilling to disclose their sexual orientation. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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