METHODS: Searches were performed until June 2016 using 4 databases: PubMed; Embase; Cochrane Library; and LILACS. The combined WHO, Drummond and CHEERS checklist were used to evaluate the quality of included studies.
RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the review and most of them were conducted in high-income countries. The inclusion of adolescent boys in vaccination program was found to be cost-effective if vaccine price and coverage was low. When coverage for female was above 75%, gender-neutral vaccination was less cost-effective than when targeting only girls aged 9-18 years. Current evidence does not show conclusive proof of greater cost-effectiveness of 9-valent vaccine compared to the older HPV vaccines as the price for 9-valent vaccine was still uncertain. Multicohort immunization strategy was cost-effective in the age range 9-14 years but the upper age limit at which vaccination was no longer cost-effective needs to be further investigated. Key influential parameters identified were duration of vaccine protection, vaccine price, coverage, and discounting rates.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings are expected to support policy-makers in making recommendations for HPV immunization programs on either switching to the 9-valent vaccine or inclusion of adolescent boys' vaccination or extending the age of vaccination.
METHODOLOGY: A total number of 612 secondary school girls participated in this study. The questionnaire consists of 38 questions which included 3 sections. The first section is about socio- demography. The Second section is about knowledge and awareness of HPV vaccines. The third section is about practices with associated barriers of HPV vaccination. Verbal consent was obtained from all participants, and data were analyzed using SPSS 13.
RESULTS: A total number of 612 secondary school girl students participated in this study. The mean age was 13.93 ± SD (1.09); minimum age was 13 years old and maximum was 17 years old. The majority of them was Malay, from rural areas and had a family monthly income of RM 3000 or less (91.8%, 53.1%, 69.6%; respectively). The majority of the parents of the school girls were with secondary education level (56.4%). The majority of the participants did not have a family history of cervical cancer (99.0%). The prevalence of HPV vaccination was 77.9% among school girls in Melaka. The majority of the participants were vaccinated in their schools (77.0%). About 69% knew about cervical cancer and 77.6% had ever heard about HPV vaccine. Regarding the factors that influence the practice of uptake HPV vaccine, they were age, race, income, parents' education, knowledge about cervical cancer, heard about HPV vaccine and place of getting the vaccine (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HPV vaccine among school girls is high. Age, race, income, parents' education, knowledge about cervical cancer, heard about HPV vaccine and place of getting the vaccine were the significant factors that influence the practice of uptake HPV vaccine among school girls.
METHODS: In the first part of the analysis costs attributable to cervical cancer and precancerous lesions were estimated; epidemiologic data were sourced from the WHO GLOBOCAN database and Malaysian national data sources. In the second part, a prevalence-based model was used to estimate the potential annual number of cases of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions that could be prevented and subsequent HPV-related treatment costs averted with the bivalent (HPV 16/18) and the quadrivalent (HPV 16/18/6/11) vaccines, at the population level, at steady state. A vaccine efficacy of 98% was assumed against HPV types included in both vaccines. Effectiveness against other oncogenic HPV types was based on the latest results from each vaccine's respective clinical trials.
RESULTS: In Malaysia there are an estimated 4,696 prevalent cases of cervical cancer annually and 1,372 prevalent cases of precancerous lesions, which are associated with a total direct cost of RM 39.2 million with a further RM 12.4 million in indirect costs owing to lost productivity. At steady state, vaccination with the bivalent vaccine was estimated to prevent 4,199 cervical cancer cases per year versus 3,804 cases for the quadrivalent vaccine. Vaccination with the quadrivalent vaccine was projected to prevent 1,721 cases of genital warts annually, whereas the annual number of cases remained unchanged with the bivalent vaccine. Furthermore, vaccination with the bivalent vaccine was estimated to avert RM 45.4 million in annual HPV-related treatment costs (direct+indirect) compared with RM 42.9 million for the quadrivalent vaccine.
CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that vaccination against HPV 16/18 can reduce the clinical and economic burden of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions in Malaysia. The greatest potential economic benefit was observed using the bivalent vaccine in preference to the quadrivalent vaccine.
METHODOLOGY: This qualitative in-depth interview study was conducted in January 2010 with 30 university students from different faculties, i.e.:International Medical School (IMS), Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (FHLS), Faculty of Business Management and Professional Studies (FBMP) and Faculty of Information Sciences and Engineering (FISE) of the Management and Science University (MSU), Shah Alam, Malaysia. After consent was obtained from all participants, the interviewer wrote down the conversations during the interview sessions. The data obtained were classified into various categories and analyzed manually.
RESULTS: The majority of participants 25 (83%) had heard about cervical cancer, while 16 (53.3%) have never heard of HPV. Only five participants (17%) mentioned that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer. Ten participants (33.3%) did not know any causes. The majority 16 (53.3%) did not know the mode of HPV transmission. The majority of participants 22 (73.3%) mentioned that they had not been vaccinated against HPV. Out of 22, 16 (53.3%) agreed to be vaccinated in the future to protect themselves from cervical cancer and five (17%) participants mentioned they are not willing because of the uncertain safety of the available vaccines and their side effects.
CONCLUSION: This study showed relatively poor knowledge about HPV and its vaccines, pointing to urgency of educational campaigns aimed at students in the public and government universities to promote HPV vaccination among this highly eligible population.
DESIGN: In-depth interviews of adolescent health care providers, 2013-2014.
SETTING: Five countries where HPV vaccination is at various stages of implementation into national programs: Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain.
PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent health care providers (N = 151) who had administered or overseen provision of adolescent vaccinations (N = Argentina: 30, Malaysia: 30, South Africa: 31, South Korea: 30, Spain: 30).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of HPV vaccination recommendation, reasons providers do not always recommend the vaccine and facilitators to doing so, comfort level with recommending the vaccine, reasons for any discomfort, and positive and negative aspects of HPV vaccination.
RESULTS: Over half of providers 82/151 (54%) recommend HPV vaccination always or most of the time (range: 20% in Malaysia to 90% in Argentina). Most providers 112/151 (74%) said they were comfortable recommending HPV vaccination, although South Korea was an outlier 10/30 (33%). Providers cited protection against cervical cancer 124/151 (83%) and genital warts 56/151 (37%) as benefits of HPV vaccination. When asked about the problems with HPV vaccination, providers mentioned high cost 75/151 (50% overall; range: 26% in South Africa to 77% in South Korea) and vaccination safety 28/151 (19%; range: 7% in South Africa to 33% in Spain). Free, low-cost, or publicly available vaccination 59/151 (39%), and additional data on vaccination safety 52/151 (34%) and efficacy 43/151 (28%) were the most commonly cited facilitators of health provider vaccination recommendation.
CONCLUSION: Interventions to increase HPV vaccination should consider a country's specific provider concerns, such as reducing cost and providing information on vaccination safety and efficacy.