Attitudes towards human papillomavirus vaccination: a qualitative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated girls aged 17–18 years

Abstract

Background and methodology This study explored knowledge about human papillomavirus (HPV) and attitudes towards HPV vaccination among girls who were part of the 'catch-up' vaccination programme. Interviews were carried out between March and May 2009 with girls (aged 17-18 years) who had received HPV vaccine (n=5) and girls who had opted not to receive HPV vaccine (n=5). Interviews lasted approximately 25 minutes, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis. Results Most girls were aware that HPV is sexually transmitted, but beyond this had limited understanding of HPV and HPV vaccination, and expressed a desire for further information. Girls were uncertain about the need for the vaccine both in terms of perceived risk (e.g. because they were not sexually active) and because of its novelty. Some had concerns about the effi cacy and safety of the vaccine, while others were mistrusting of the information provided. Being embarrassed about discussing the vaccine with parents and practical barriers to vaccination were also discussed. Discussion and conclusions Understanding of HPV was poor, despite participants having been offered the vaccine. Schoolbased interventions might be a useful supplement to leafl ets, and should focus on improving knowledge of HPV and awareness of the purpose of HPV vaccination.

The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations

“…In the 29 articles that studied HPV vaccination , the most common concerns identified were about safety, and particularly unknown adverse reactions that might develop long after vaccination [104][105][106][107][108][109][110]112,113,[115][116][117][118][119][120][123][124][125][126][127][129][130][131][132]. These concerns often came with discussion around the newness of the vaccine [104,107,112,113,117,126,129], and claims that it has not been tested long enough [104,105,107,115,122,[129][130][131].…”

“…These concerns often came with discussion around the newness of the vaccine [104,107,112,113,117,126,129], and claims that it has not been tested long enough [104,105,107,115,122,[129][130][131]. Many articles reported concerns about a lack of clear information around HPV infection and vaccination, and individuals feeling that they have insufficient knowledge to make an informed decision [104,1 08,109,112,116,118-121,127,128,132].…”

“…Some studies reported beliefs that children are too young to receive the HPV vaccine [104,107,118,119,121,122,126], and fears of a ''sexually transmitted infection vaccine" leading to unsafe sexual behaviours and increased promiscuity [107,110,117,121,124,125,130]. Some also discussed personal values or faith issues [104,110,122], and others the difficulty of talking about a ''sex vaccine" [110,112,117,132]. Another important belief was that there is no risk of contracting HPV [112,114,122,129,130] and therefore no need for vaccination [105,112,115,122,130].…”

“…Some also discussed personal values or faith issues [104,110,122], and others the difficulty of talking about a ''sex vaccine" [110,112,117,132]. Another important belief was that there is no risk of contracting HPV [112,114,122,129,130] and therefore no need for vaccination [105,112,115,122,130]. The perception that the risks of vaccination are higher than benefits were more common than for other vaccines [106,107,118,130] and one study mentioned the perception that HPV infection is not a serious illness [129].…”

Awareness of HPV infection and attitudes toward HPV vaccination among Latvian adolescents

“…Williams et al [11] reported that adolescent girls had limited understanding and knowledge; therefore, they did not fully appreciate their risk of acquiring HPV infection and were unable to provide informed consent for HPV vaccination. Knowledge of HPV among European adolescents was previously found to be poor in a systematic review [12].…”