Elsevier

Women's Health Issues

Volume 21, Issue 1, January–February 2011, Pages 71-79
Women's Health Issues

Original article
HPV Vaccine Promotion: Does Referring to Both Cervical Cancer and Genital Warts Affect Intended and Actual Vaccination Behavior?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2010.08.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Young women have poor awareness that human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause both cervical cancer and genital warts, a sexually transmitted infection (STI). A newly developed HPV vaccine can provide protection against both cervical cancer and genital warts. This vaccine could be promoted by health authorities/professionals as preventing cervical cancer plus genital warts, or cervical cancer alone. Because stigma around STIs may reduce acceptance of the vaccine, the effect of information framing (’cervical cancer’ versus ’cervical cancer plus genital warts’) on intention to receive the HPV vaccine and actual uptake behavior was examined using the health belief model (HBM).

Methods

We randomized 159 young women under the age of 27 to receive one of two variations of a fact-sheet describing the HPV vaccine as 1) preventing cervical cancer or 2) preventing cervical cancer and genital warts.

Results

The results revealed low HPV knowledge (22%) and high HPV vaccination intention (79%), which was not influenced by information framing. Receipt of the vaccine at the 2-month follow-up was 37%, and was also not influenced by information framing. The overall HBM predicted vaccination intention (p < .001) and behavior (p = .002). However, only barriers (p = .029) and benefits (p = .001) independently predicted HPV vaccination intention; susceptibility (p = .023) and benefits (p = .033) independently predicted HPV vaccination behavior.

Conclusion

Highlighting the sexual transmissibility of HPV does not seem to lower vaccination intentions or behaviors among young women. Potential challenges for promotion of the HPV vaccination program in Australia and worldwide are discussed.

Section snippets

Participants

A sample of 159 female first-year psychology students from the University of Sydney who were under the age of 27 participated in this study. Women who had already received the HPV vaccine were excluded. Because of the timing of the current study (conducted between June and August 2007), it is highly unlikely that participants had been offered the HPV vaccine by a health professional. Recruitment was conducted via the university online sign-up system Experimetrix and participants received course

Participant Characteristics

A total of 159 young women participated (response rate 95%), with 81 randomized to the CC and 78 to the CC + GW condition. There was a significant difference in father’s educational level between the CC and CC + GW conditions (χ21 = 6.12; p = .05; Table 1). However, there were no significant differences between the two conditions on the other demographic characteristics and sexual history. The mean age of the participants was 19 years (SD = 1.18). The majority of participants came from a highly

Discussion

This study assessed HPV knowledge, examined the effect of differential information-framing (CC versus CC + GW) on intention and receipt of HPV vaccination, and employed the HBM to identify health beliefs that predict HPV vaccination intention and uptake behavior.

In line with previous research (e.g., Cooper-Robbins et al., 2010, Licht et al., 2010, Mosavel and El-Shaarawi, 2007), substantial gaps in HPV knowledge were identified in this sample, with approximately half of the young women having

Implications and Conclusions

A number of the study’s findings have clinical implications for the way the vaccine is promoted and/or administered in the future. Participants who were already sexually experienced, and thus potentially already infected by the virus, had significantly higher intentions to vaccinate scores compared with those who had never had sexual intercourse. Educating women effectively about the need for vaccination before sexual debut is therefore a priority. Participants with high opposition to vaccines

References (44)

  • S.C. Woodhall et al.

    Anticipated acceptance of HPV vaccination at the baseline of implementation: A survey of parental and adolescent knowledge and attitudes in Finland

    Journal of Adolescent Health

    (2007)
  • G.D. Zimet et al.

    Health beliefs and intention to get immunized for HIV

    Journal of Adolescent Health

    (1997)
  • C. Abraham et al.

    The health belief model

  • M.H. Becker

    The health belief model and personal health behavior

    Health Education Monographs

    (1974)
  • C.W. Boehner et al.

    Viral sexually transmitted disease vaccine acceptability among college students

    Sexually Transmitted Diseases

    (2003)
  • Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research (CECCR)

    Information framing affects American’s intentions to vaccinate against HPV [Electronic version]

  • J. Cohen

    A power primer

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1992)
  • R. Cooke et al.

    How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis

    Psychology and Health

    (2008)
  • T.J. Cox

    The development of cervical cancer and its precursors: What is the role of human papillomavirus infection?

    Current Opinions in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

    (2006)
  • A.F. Dempsey et al.

    Factors that that are associated with parental acceptance of human papillomavirus vaccines: A randomized intervention study of written information about HPV

    Pediatrics

    (2006)
  • T. Denny-Smith et al.

    A survey of female nursing students’ knowledge, health beliefs, perceptions of risk and risk behaviors regarding the human papillomavirus and cervical cancer

    Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners

    (2006)
  • A.L. Friedman et al.

    Exploring the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and communication preferences of the general public regarding HPV: Findings from CDC focus group research and implications for practice

    Health Education & Behavior

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text