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.
METHODS: De-identified residual specimens from women aged 16-24 years submitted for chlamydia testing were collected from three pathology laboratories in Victoria and New South Wales. Limited demographic information, and chlamydia test results were also collected. Patient identifiers were sent directly from the laboratories to the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, to obtain HPV vaccination histories. Samples underwent HPV genotyping using Seegene Anyplex II HPV 28 assay.
RESULTS: Between April and July 2018, 362 residual samples were collected, the majority (60.2%) of which were cervical swabs. Demographic data and vaccination histories were received for 357 (98.6%) women (mean age 21.8, SD 2.0). Overall, 65.6% of women were fully vaccinated, 9.8% partially, and 24.7% unvaccinated. The majority (86.0%) resided in a major city, 35.9% were classified in the upper quintile of socioeconomic advantage and chlamydia positivity was 7.8%.The prevalence of quadrivalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV6/11/16/18) was 2.8% (1.5-5.1%) overall with no differences by vaccination status (p = 0.729). The prevalence of additional nonavalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV31/33/45/52/58) was 19.3% (15.6-23.8%). One or more oncogenic HPV types were detected in 46.8% (95% CI 41.6-52.0%) of women.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV testing of residual chlamydia specimens provides a simple, feasible method for monitoring circulating genotypes. Applied on a larger scale this method can be utilised to obtain a timely assessment of nonavalent vaccine impact among young women not yet eligible for cervical screening.
METHODS: 151 adolescent vaccine providers and 118 mothers of adolescent girls aged 9-14 were recruited from five geographically-diverse countries: Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain. We assessed providers' preferences for single-purpose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine versus MPVs (including HPV+herpes simplex virus (HSV)-2, HPV+HIV, or HPV+HSV-2+HIV) via quantitative surveys. Maternal MPV attitudes were assessed in four focus group discussions (FGDs) in each country.
RESULTS: Most providers preferred MPVs over single-purpose HPV vaccination, with preference ranging from 61% in Malaysia to 96% in South Africa. HPV+HSV-2+HIV was the most preferred MPV formulation (56-82%). Overall, 53% of the mothers preferred MPVs over single-purpose HPV vaccines, with strongest support in South Africa (90%) and lowest support in South Korea (29%). Convenience and trust in the health care system were commonly-cited reasons for MPV acceptability. Safety and efficacy concerns were common barriers to accepting MPVs, though specific concerns differed by country. Across FGDs, additional safety and efficacy information on MPVs were requested, particularly from trusted sources like HCPs.
CONCLUSIONS: Though maternal acceptability of MPVs varied by country, MPV acceptability would be enhanced by having HCPs provide parents with additional MPV vaccine safety and efficacy information. While most providers preferred MPVs, future health behavior research should identify acceptability barriers, and targeted provider interventions should equip providers to improve vaccination discussions with parents.
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.
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: A link to the online survey was sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Asia interested in AYA cancer care. Questions covered the demographics and training of HCPs, their understanding of AYA definition, availability and access to specialised AYA services, the support and advice offered during and after treatment, and factors of treatment non-compliance.
Results: We received 268 responses from 22 Asian countries. There was a striking variation in the definition of AYA (median lower age 15 years, median higher age 29 years). The majority of the respondents (78%) did not have access to specialised cancer services and 73% were not aware of any research initiatives for AYA. Over two-thirds (69%) had the option to refer their patients for psychological and/or nutritional support and most advised their patients on a healthy lifestyle. Even so, 46% did not ask about smokeless tobacco habits and only half referred smokers to a smoking cessation service. Furthermore, 29% did not promote human papillomavirus vaccination for girls and 17% did not promote hepatitis B virus vaccination for high-risk individuals. In terms of funding, 69% reported governmental insurance coverage, although 65% reported that patients self-paid, at least partially. Almost half (47%) reported treatment non-compliance or abandonment as an issue, attributed to financial and family problems (72%), loss of follow-up (74%) and seeking of alternative treatments (77%).
Conclusions: Lack of access to and suboptimal delivery of AYA-specialised cancer care services across Asia pose major challenges and require specific interventions.