MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental before and after study performed between October 2014 and March 2015. Five hundred and eighty students were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. All were required to complete both pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaires. Those in the intervention group were given an information leaflet to read before answering the post-intervention questionnaire.
RESULTS: Almost half (48.3%) of the students had poor knowledge, with a score less than 5, and only 51 (8.8%) exhibited good knowledge, with a score of 11 and above. After educational intervention, the number of students with poor knowledge was reduced to 177 (29.3%) and the number of students who exhibited good knowledge increased to 148 (25.5%). Students from the intervention group demonstrated significant higher total scores in knowledge regarding 'HPV infection and cervical cancer' (p=0.000) and 'HPV vaccination and cervical cancer prevention' (p=0.000) during post-intervention as compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge on HPV infection and vaccination is low among pre-university students. Educational intervention in the form of information leaflets appears effective in creating awareness and improving knowledge.
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.
METHODS: Ninety-four HIV-infected patients were recruited to the study; a longitudinal cohort of patients recruited just prior to commencing cART and followed up for 48 weeks (n = 27), and a cross-sectional cohort (n = 67) consisting of patients with sIR (CD4 T-cell count < 350 cells/μL) and oIR (CD4 T-cell count > 500 cells/μL) after a minimum of 2 years on cART. Controls (n = 29) consisted of HIV-negative individuals. IFN-γ ELISPOT responses against HPV16 and HPV52 E6 were correlated to clinical characteristics, anal and oral HPV carriage, T-cell maturational subsets, markers of activation, senescence and T-regulatory cells.
RESULTS: HPV16 and HPV52 E6-specific T-cell responses were detected in only one of 27 patients (3.7%) during the initial phase of immune recovery. After at least 2 years of cART, those who achieved oIR had significantly higher E6-specific responses (9 of 34; 26.5%) compared with those with sIR (2 of 32; 6.3%) (P = 0.029). Apart from higher CD4 T-cell counts and lower CD4 T-cell activation, no other immunological correlates were associated with the detection of HPV16 and HPV52 E6-specific responses.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV16 and HPV52 E6-specific IFN-γ T-cell responses, a correlate of protective immunity, were detected more frequently among HIV-infected patients who achieved optimal immune recovery on cART (26.5%) compared with those with suboptimal recovery (6.3%).
METHODS: Adolescent providers (n = 151) from Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain were surveyed on messages, family decision makers, and sources of communication to best motivate parents to vaccinate their adolescent daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of recommending messages specifically targeted at cervical cancer with providers' characteristics: gender, medical specialization, and previous administration of human papillomavirus vaccination.
RESULTS: Mothers were considered the most important human papillomavirus vaccination decision makers for their daughters (range 93%-100%). Television was cited as the best source of information on human papillomavirus vaccination in surveyed countries (range 56.5%-87.1%), except Spain where one-on-one discussions were most common (73.3%). Prevention messages were considered the most likely to motivate parents to vaccinate their daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus, in all five countries (range 30.8%-55.9%). Optimal messages emphasized cervical cancer prevention, and included strong provider recommendation to vaccinate, vaccine safety and efficacy, timely vaccination, and national policy for human papillomavirus vaccination. Pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to cite that the best prevention messages should focus on cervical cancer (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 1.17 to 15.02 vs other medical specialists).
CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication messages that would motivate parents to vaccinate against human papillomavirus were based on strong recommendation emphasizing prevention of cervical cancer. To frame convincing messages to increase vaccination uptake, adolescent providers should receive updated training on human papillomavirus and associated cancers, while clearly addressing human papillomavirus vaccination safety and efficacy.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We followed a cohort of 308,036 women recruited in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study. At enrollment, participants completed a questionnaire and provided serum. After a 9-year median follow-up, 261 ICC and 804 CIN3/CIS cases were reported. In a nested case-control study, the sera from 609 cases and 1,218 matched controls were tested for L1 antibodies against HPV types 11,16,18,31,33,35,45,52,58, and antibodies against Chlamydia trachomatis and Human herpesvirus 2. Multivariate analyses were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The cohort analysis showed that number of full-term pregnancies was positively associated with CIN3/CIS risk (p-trend = 0.03). Duration of oral contraceptives use was associated with a significantly increased risk of both CIN3/CIS and ICC (HR = 1.6 and HR = 1.8 respectively for ≥ 15 years versus never use). Ever use of menopausal hormone therapy was associated with a reduced risk of ICC (HR = 0.5, 95%CI: 0.4-0.8). A non-significant reduced risk of ICC with ever use of intrauterine devices (IUD) was found in the nested case-control analysis (OR = 0.6). Analyses restricted to all cases and HPV seropositive controls yielded similar results, revealing a significant inverse association with IUD for combined CIN3/CIS and ICC (OR = 0.7).
CONCLUSIONS: Even though HPV is the necessary cause of CC, our results suggest that several hormonal factors are risk factors for cervical carcinogenesis. Adherence to current cervical cancer screening guidelines should minimize the increased risk of CC associated with these hormonal risk factors.