4.6 Article

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine and Sexual Behavior Among Adolescent and Young Women

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 44-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Vaccines to prevent certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated cancers are recommended for routine use among young women. Nationally representative reports of vaccine uptake have not explored the relationship between HPV vaccine initiation and various sexual behaviors. Purpose: Explore sexual behavior and demographic correlates of HPV vaccine initiation from a nationally representative survey of adolescent and young adult women. Methods: In 2007-2008, a total of 1243 girls/women aged 15-24 years responded to questions about receiving HPV vaccine in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). In 2010, demographic and sexual behavior correlates were evaluated in bivariate and multivariate analyses by age. Results: HPV vaccine initiation was higher among those aged 15-19 years than those aged 20-24 years (30.3% vs 15.9%, p<0.001). No differences existed by race/ethnicity for those aged 15-19 years, but among women aged 20-24 years, non-Hispanic blacks were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have received the HPV vaccine (AOR=0.15). HPV vaccine initiation was greater for those with insurance regardless of age. HPV vaccination was not associated with being sexually active or number of sex partners at either age. Among sexually active adolescents aged 15-19 years, those who received HPV vaccine were more likely to always wear a condom (AOR=3.0). Conclusions: This study highlights disparities in HPV vaccine initiation by insurance status among girls/women aged 15-24 years and by race/ethnicity among women aged >19 years. No association was found between HPV vaccination and risky sexual behavior. (Am J Prev Med 2012;42(1):44-52) Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine

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