STUDY DESIGN: In this cross sectional study, between November 2013 to March 2014, in a public university, a convenient sampling method was used. A total of 716 respondents were recruited and interviewed with a set of standard questionnaires for assessment of knowledge, perception and attitudes towards HPV and predictor variables associated with level of knowledge.
RESULTS: Almost half (48.9%) of the respondents scored less than 5 and were categorised as having poor knowledge. Three hundred and twelve (43.6%) respondents had moderate knowledge and only 54 (7.5%) respondents exhibited good knowledge with the score of 11 and above. Only 142 (20%) students perceived themselves to be vulnerable to HPV infection though 560 (78.2%) students thought that HPV infection is a serious disease. Perceived benefits and desire to be vaccinated were significantly associated with gender (p=0.000) and knowledge of HPV vaccine and cervical cancer (p=0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: The level of knowledge regarding HPV among the pre-university students was low. However, student intention for vaccination increased with increasing level of knowledge. Thus, efforts to improve knowledge and awareness should be prioritised to increase uptake of the HPV vaccination programme and hence reduce morbidity and mortality from consequences of HPV infection, including cervical carcinoma.
Methodology: Ethical committee of the University approved this study. A validated, pre-tested questionnaire was sent electronically to 224 OHP. Questionnaire collected information regarding demography, knowledge about HPV-OSCC link, HPV vaccine, and willingness to educate patients about HPV OSCC link among the participants of this cross-sectional study. Data collected was analysed using "Stata/IC-13" and was summarised using descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
Results: Out of 179 participants, around 39% of the participant's opined virus was not a causative factor for OSCC. Around, 44% replied posterior portion of the tongue/oro-pharynx was the commonest site for HPV related OSCC, whereas 29% replied that lateral border of the tongue was the common site for HPV related OSCC. Forty one percent educated patients regarding HPV infection being a causative factor for OSCC. HPV vaccine can prevent OSCC was stated by 70% OHP. Only 12% were aware of the availability of HPV vaccine in Malaysia. Majority (99%), agreed that there is a need to offer continuing education programmes to dentists highlighting advances and preventive strategies in the fight against OSCC.
Conclusion: Substantial increase in awareness is required among OHP regarding HPV-OSCC link.
Objective: To provide an update on the current understanding, evaluation, and management of penile warts.
Methods: A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key terms 'penile warts' and 'genital warts'. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews.
Results: Penile warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), notably HPV-6 and HPV-11. Penile warts typically present as asymptomatic papules or plaques. Lesions may be filiform, exophytic, papillomatous, verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cerebriform, fungating, or cauliflower-like. Approximately one-third of penile warts regress without treatment and the average duration prior to resolution is approximately 9 months. Active treatment is preferable to watchful observation to speed up clearance of the lesions and to assuage fears of transmission and autoinoculation. Patient-administered therapies include podofilox (0.5%) solution or gel, imiquimod 3.75 or 5% cream, and sinecatechins (polypheron E) 15% ointment. Clinician-administered therapies include podophyllin, cryotherapy, bichloroacetic or trichloroacetic acid, oral cimetidine, surgical excision, electrocautery, and carbon dioxide laser therapy. Patients who do not respond to first-line treatments may respond to other therapies or a combination of treatment modalities. Second-line therapies include topical/intralesional/intravenous cidofovir, topical 5-fluorouracil, and topical ingenol mebutate.
Conclusion: No single treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to other treatment modalities. The choice of the treatment method should depend on the physician's comfort level with the various treatment options, the patient's preference and tolerability of treatment, and the number and severity of lesions. The comparative efficacy, ease of administration, adverse effects, cost, and availability of the treatment modality should also be taken into consideration.
METHODOLOGY: The study design was quasi-experimental. The interprofessional (IP) team implemented an educational module and analyzed the difference in awareness of young individuals toward the cancer cervix. A pretest and posttest written questionnaire, customized for both genders, was administered with the intervention of the educational module in between. The module consisted of a short educational presentation along with a group activity. A follow-up survey was also done after 2 months to check the attrition of awareness. The statistical analysis was done using MacNemar test using SPSS 12 IBM software and significance of differences were determined.
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement of knowledge and awareness on linkage between HPV and cervical cancer (P < 0.001). There was also significant change with regard to attitudes toward cervical cancer vaccination (P = 0.004). The knowledge of HPV linkage to the malignancy was maintained after 2 months of gap. The subjects also wished for more future awareness program.
CONCLUSIONS: There is improved awareness in the dental and foundation in science students, and this improved awareness will ensure favorable attitudes toward cervical cancer vaccines or will attend regular screening programs. Awareness program must be held at regular intervals at different locations to enhance the knowledge dissemination of this common yet preventable genital malignancy of females. The IP collaboration and practices will help in reducing the disease burden of the society in future.
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.