Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Equity in human papilloma virus vaccination uptake?: sexual behaviour, knowledge and demographics in a cross-sectional study in (un)vaccinated girls in the Netherlands

  • Madelief Mollers1, 2,
  • Karin Lubbers3,
  • Symen K Spoelstra3,
  • Willibrord CM Weijmar-Schultz3,
  • Toos Daemen4,
  • Tjalke A Westra4,
  • Marianne AB van der Sande1, 5,
  • Hans W Nijman3,
  • Hester E de Melker1 and
  • Adriana Tami4, 6Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Public Health201414:288

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-288

Received: 4 September 2013

Accepted: 18 March 2014

Published: 28 March 2014

Abstract

Background

In the Netherlands, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is part of a national program equally accessible for all girls invited for vaccination. To assess possible inequalities in vaccine uptake, we investigated differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls with regard to various characteristics, including education and ethnicity, (both associated with non-attendance to the national cervical screening program), sexual behaviour and knowledge of HPV.

Methods

In 2010, 19,939 nationwide randomly-selected 16–17 year-old girls (2009 vaccination campaign) were invited to fill out an online questionnaire. A knowledge scale score and multivariable analyses identified variables associated with vaccination status.

Results

2989 (15%) of the selected girls participated (65% vaccinated, 35% unvaccinated). The participants were comparable with regard to education, ethnicity, most sexual risk behaviour and had similar knowledge scores on HPV transmission and vaccination. However, unvaccinated girls lived in more urbanised areas and were more likely to have a religious background. Irrespective of vaccination status, 81% of the girls were aware of the causal relationship between HPV and cervical cancer, but the awareness of the necessity of cervical screening despite being vaccinated was limited.

Conclusions

HPV vaccine uptake was not associated with knowledge of HPV and with factors that are known to be associated with non-attendance to the cervical cancer screening program in the Netherlands. Furthermore, most sexual behaviour was not related to vaccination status meaning that teenage unvaccinated girls were not at a disproportionally higher risk of being exposed to HPV. Routine HPV vaccination may reduce the social inequity of prevention of cervical cancer.

Keywords

Monitoring Human papilloma virus Vaccination uptake Sexual behaviour Knowledge

Background

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STI) worldwide. By the age of 50, about 80% of sexually active women will acquire HPV [13]. Most infections are transient and around 90% clears within two years [4, 5]. However, a persisting high-risk HPV infection is the most important risk factor for the development of premalignant cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN1-3) and cervical cancer [6].

Since 2006, a quadrivalent vaccine that induces protection against HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 (Gardasil®), and in 2007 a bivalent vaccine against HPV type 16 and 18 (Cervarix®) are available. Both have shown an efficacy of >90% in preventing CIN2/3 [7, 8].

In the Netherlands, the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix®) targeting 12-year-old girls became part of the National Immunisation Program in 2010. In 2009, girls aged 13 to 16 years were offered this vaccine during a “catch-up” vaccination program where the uptake amounted to 52% [9]. HPV vaccination uptake depends on diverse factors. In the United Kingdom, schoolgirls from ethnic minorities had a lower vaccine uptake and in the United States, girls with lower socio-economic status were less likely to take up the full 3 doses of the vaccine [10, 11]. In the Netherlands, a cervical cancer screening program runs since 1976. Currently, the program provides organized cervical cytological screening every five years for women aged 30–60 years. In 2005, there was a 65% attendance to the cervical screening program [12]. However, when including opportunistic screening figures, the overall coverage for cervical screening amounted to 77% nationwide [13]. It has been shown that in the Netherlands, socio-economically disadvantaged women and women of non–Dutch nationality attend the national cervical screening program less frequently [14]. More than half of the cervical cancers are diagnosed in women who do not attend the Dutch screening program [15, 16]. Reducing the occurrence of cervical cancer might thus be hampered if girls who tend to decline HPV vaccination now are also screened less often in the future. This might lead to inequity, i.e. unequal fairness or justice in the way people are treated.

Prior to introduction of vaccination, some studies have reported on girls’ intention to be vaccinated [1719]. However, little is known about the characteristics of girls in relation to actual HPV vaccination uptake [20, 21]. This study aims to explore differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls with regard to characteristics such as education, ethnicity, (sexual) risk behaviour and knowledge of HPV. Understanding the features of these two groups could provide insight in future vaccine and screening targeting efforts.

Methods

Study population and study design

A nationwide self-reported cross-sectional study of 16-17-year-old girls was performed in the Netherlands in December 2010. A random sample of 19,939 girls born in 1993, invited for the HPV catch-up vaccination campaign in 2009 (9992 vaccinated and 9947 unvaccinated), was selected from the national vaccination database (Praeventis) held at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) [22].

A semi-structured questionnaire was developed, pre-tested and applied to the study population via online research survey software (EFS Survey version 8.1, Unipark (Questback)). The questionnaire contained pre-coded questions on the following topics: Socio-demographic: education level (girl and parents), ethnicity (Dutch, Turkish, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans, Arubans and other), religion, alcohol and smoking behaviour. Sexual behaviour: e.g. ever have had sexual contact (vaginal or anal), age of sexual debut, use of contraceptives (especially condom use), number of sexual partners, type of current partner (steady/casual) and history of STI. HPV knowledge and HPV vaccination: e.g. modes of transmission, protection level of HPV vaccination, risk of infection and participation in the cervical cancer screening program. Each girl selected for the study received an invitation by post with an information letter for the girl and one for her parents/caretakers, and a link and a unique code to access the online questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to fill out and the information was processed anonymously.

This research was performed according to the principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki [23]. The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (CCMO)) decided that the nature of the study did not require mandatory approval of a competent medical-ethical review committee, in agreement with the Dutch Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act. The CCMO allowed to receive consent from the participating girls through the online system (no written consent from the girls or their parents was required).

Statistical analysis

Differences in socio-demographic characteristics, sexual behaviour and knowledge of HPV between vaccinated and unvaccinated women were compared in contingency tables using χ2 test. Socio-economic status was also assessed using the ‘status score’ computed by the Dutch Institute for Social Research (SCP, http://www.scp.nl), as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES). This score takes into account the average income per household in a given postcode area as well as the percentage of households with low income, without a paid job and with low education level. The lower the score is, the higher the socioeconomic status [24]. Knowledge scale composite scores were calculated assigning a point for each correct answer to 8 general knowledge questions (0–8) (general knowledge score) and to 10 questions on HPV transmission knowledge (0–10) (transmission knowledge score). Mean scores were compared for vaccinated and unvaccinated girls by a t-test. Significance was determined at the 5% level (P-value ≤0.05).

Variables associated with vaccination status found to approach significance (P-value ≤0.1) were fitted in a multivariable logistic regression model. The strength of the associations was expressed as crude odds ratios (OR) in univariable analysis and as adjusted OR (aOR) in multivariable analysis, comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated girls. Two models were carried out: one including the total sample of girls and the second comprising only sexually active girls. The final models included those factors that remained significant (P-value ≤0.05) after backward selection and those found to change the OR of other variables by at least 10%. Analyses were conducted using software packages from SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc. 2010, USA).

Results

Socio-demographic and sexual behaviour characteristics

A total of 2989 females (15% of invited participants) aged 16–17 (median 17) participated in this study. Among them, 65% received at least 1 HPV vaccination and 35% received none. The distribution of most characteristics was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls (Tables 1 and 2). However, vaccinated girls were more likely to live in low urbanised areas and less likely had a religious background. Amongst those who professed a religion, vaccinated girls were more often Catholic while unvaccinated girls were more often Protestant Christian. The vaccination status between the different non-Dutch ethnic subgroups was similar (P = 0.833), they were therefore grouped together into a “non-Dutch” ethnic group for analysis. Ethnicity was not associated with vaccination status (Table 1). Drinking alcohol was reported more by vaccinated girls as was the use of contraceptives (Table 1). A slightly higher percentage of vaccinated girls were sexually active but amongst them a lower mean total number of sexual partners in their lifetime was identified. Except for the higher percentage of female partners in the unvaccinated girls, there were no other differences in sexual behaviour (Table 2).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics amongst all girls participating in our study (n = 2989), the Netherlands 2010

Category

Total

Vaccinated

Unvaccinated

OR (95% CI) for being vaccinated

P-value

N (%)

n (%)

n (%)

 

2989 (100)

1938 (65)

1051 (35)

  

Age

   

ref

 

  Median (range)

17 (16–17)

17 (16–17)

17 (16–17)

0.9 (0.6–1.2)

0.45

Ethnicity (n=2988)

     

  Dutch

2849 (95)

1852 (96)

997 (95)

ref

 

  Non–Dutch

139 (5)

86 (4)

53 (5)

0.9 (0.6–1.2)

0.45

Degree of urbanisation (n=2971)

    

  Low (1–1000 inhabitants)

1514 (51)

1019 (53)

495 (47)

ref

 

  High (>1000 inhabitants)

1457 (49)

908 (47)

549 (53)

0.8 (0.7–0.9)

0.004

Socio economic status a (n=2962)

    

  Mean (95% CI)

−0.01(−0.03–0.03)

−0.02 (−0.06–0.02)

0.02 (−0.03–0.07)

0.9 (0.9–1.0)

0.20

Religion (n=2898)

     

  No religion

1532 (53)

1050 (56)

482 (48)

ref

 

  Catholics

708 (24)

511 (27)

197 (19)

1.2 (1.0–1.5)

 

  Protestant Christian

642 (22)

317 (17)

325 (32)

0.4 (0.4–0.5)

 

  Other

16 (1)

6 (0.3)

10 (1)

0.3 (0.1–0.7)

<0.001

Education b

     

  Low

221 (7)

148 (8)

73 (7)

ref

 

  Middle

992 (33)

631 (33)

361 (34)

0.9 (0.6–1.2)

 

  High

1776 (59)

1159 (60)

617 (59)

0.9 (0.7–1.2)

0.54

Education of parents b (n=2787)

    

  Low

49 (2)

28 (2)

21(2)

ref

 

  Middle

1162 (42)

749 (41)

413 (42)

1.4 (0.8–2.4)

 

  High

1576 (57)

1031 (57)

545 (56)

1.4 (0.8–2.5)

0.45

Alcohol use (n=2983)

    

  No

723 (24)

425 (22)

298 (28)

ref

 

  Yes

2260 (76)

1509 (78)

751 (72)

1.4 (1.2–1.7)

<0.001

Smoking (n=2984)

    

  No

2280 (76)

1492 (77)

788 (75)

ref

 

  Current smoker

476 (16)

299 (15)

177 (17)

0.9 (0.7–1.2)

 

  Former smoker

228 (8)

144 (7)

84 (8)

0.9 (0.7–1.1)

0.47

Contraception (n=2910)

    

  No

902 (31)

533 (28)

369 (37)

ref

 

  Yes

2008 (69)

1371 (72)

637 (63)

1.5 (1.3–1.8)

<0.001

Type of contraception (n=2003)

    

  Pill

1253 (63)

848 (62)

405 (64)

ref

 

  Condom

160 (8)

100 (7)

60 (9)

0.8 (0.6–1.1)

 

  Pill and condom

544 (27)

385 (28)

159 (25)

1.2 (0.9–1.4)

 

  Other

46 (2)

34 (2)

12 (2)

1.4 (0.7–2.7)

0.18

Ever had sex (n=2898)

    

  No

1303 (45)

826 (44)

477 (48)

ref

 

  Yes

1595 (55)

1070 (56)

525 (52)

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

0.04

aCombination of the average income per household with percentage of households with low income, without a paid job and with low average education resulting in a score ranging [−4;+4]. Note that the lower the score is, the higher the socioeconomic status is [24].

bLow = no education or primary education; Middle = junior technical school, lower general or intermediate vocational secondary education; High = higher vocational or higher general secondary education, pre-university/university education.

Missing values are deducted from the total number of girls.

Table 2

Sexual risk factors amongst sexually active girls participating in our study (n = 1595), the Netherlands 2010

Category

Total

Vaccinated

Unvaccinated

OR (95% CI) for being vaccinated

P-value

 

N (%)

n (%)

n (%)

 

1595 (100)

1070 (67)

525 (33)

  

Steady partner (n=1588)

    

  No

510 (32)

336 (32)

174 (33)

ref

 

  Yes

1078 (68)

729 (68)

349 (67)

1.1 (0.9–1.4)

0.49

Number of casual partners (n=1589)

   

  0

806 (51)

553 (52)

253 (48)

ref

 

  1

602 (38)

402 (38)

200 (38)

0.9 (0.7–1.2)

 

  2

125 (8)

75 (7)

50 (10)

0.7 (0.5–1.0)

 

  >2

56 (4)

35 (3)

21 (4)

0.8 (0.4–1.4)

0.24

Condom use steady partner (n=1078)

     

  Always

193 (18)

126 (17)

67 (19)

ref

 

  Not always

885 (82)

603 (83)

282 (81)

1.1 (0.8–1.6)

0.44

Condom use casual partner (n=778)

   

  Always

219 (28)

144 (28)

75 (28)

ref

 

  Not always

559 (72)

364 (72)

195 (72)

1.0 (0.7–1.3)

0.87

STI (n=780)

     

  No

641 (82)

423 (83)

218 (80)

ref

 

  Yes

139 (18)

86 (17)

53 (20)

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

0.36

Sex of partner (n=1589)

    

  Male

1560 (98)

1051 (99)

509 (97)

ref

 

  Female

29 (2)

15 (1)

14 (3)

0.5 (0.2–1.1)

0.08

Age of sexual debut (n=1579)

   

  Mean (95% CI)

15.5 (15.4–15.6)

15.5 (15.5–15.6)

15.4 (15.3–15.5)

1.2 (1.0–1.3)

0.74

Total number of lifetime sexual partners (n=1584)

  

  Mean (95% CI)

2.0 (1.9–2.1)

1.9 (1.8–2.0)

2.2 (2.0–2.4)

0.9 (0.9–1.0)

<0.001

Missing values are deducted from the total number of sexually active girls.

Sexual behaviour and views associated with HPV vaccination

The majority of both vaccinated and unvaccinated girls (97.3% vs. 98.2%) thought that HPV vaccination had not changed their sexual behaviour, 0.8% of the girls answered that use of condoms would not be needed to protect against STIs after HPV vaccination. However, 17% of the vaccinated and 26% of the unvaccinated replied that other girls would be inclined to use less condoms after vaccination. In addition, a higher proportion of vaccinated girls thought HPV could not be transmitted when using condoms.

General knowledge of HPV and HPV vaccination

Vaccinated girls were less aware that HPV vaccination does not protect against all HPV types, but were more aware that HPV vaccination does not protect against all STIs (Table 3). In general, few girls knew that HPV may cause genital warts (20%) and that most HPV infections clear on their own (5%). Approximately three quarters (73%) were aware that unprotected sex entails a higher risk of acquiring an HPV infection. More than 80% recognised that an HPV infection is a risk for cervical cancer and about 68% of the girls knew that an HPV infection does not always lead to cervical cancer. Also more than 80% knew that cervical cancer does not always lead to death. Depending on the question, a variable number of girls (9% to 63%) answered ‘don’t know’. The general knowledge score (one point for every right answer) was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls.
Table 3

HPV general knowledge amongst all girls participating in our study (n = 2989), the Netherlands 2010

Category

Total

Vaccinated

Unvaccinated

OR (95% CI) for being vaccinated

P-value

N (%)

n (%)

n (%)

 

2989 (100)

1938 (65)

1051 (35)

  

HPV vaccination protects against all HPV types (n=2910)

   

  No

1811 (62)

1110 (58)

701 (70)

ref

 

  Yes

373 (13)

291 (15)

82 (8)

2.2 (1.7–2.9)

 

  Don’t know

726 (25)

505 (27)

221 (22)

1.4 (1.2–1.7)

<0.001

HPV vaccination protects against all STIs (n=2909)

   

  No

2567 (88)

1702 (89)

865 (86)

ref

 

  Yes

52 (2)

33 (2)

19 (2)

0.9 (0.5–1.6)

 

  Don’t know

290 (10)

170 (9)

120 (12)

0.7 (0.6–0.9)

0.03

An HPV infection always leads to cervical cancer (n=2930)

   

  No

1984 (68)

1294 (68)

690 (68)

ref

 

  Yes

121 (4)

80 (4)

41 (4)

1.0 (0.7–1.5)

 

  Don’t know

825 (28)

541 (28)

284 (28)

1.0 (0.9–1.2)

0.97

Cervical cancer is always fatal (n=2930)

   

  No

2414 (82)

1579 (82)

835 (82)

ref

 

  Yes

141 (5)

98 (5)

43 (4)

1.2 (0.8–1.8)

 

  Don’t know

375 (13)

238 (12)

137 (14)

0.9 (0.7–1.2)

0.43

If you have unprotected sex, you are at high risk of an HPV infection (n=2930)

 

  No

311 (11)

193 (10)

118 (12)

ref

 

  Yes

2143 (73)

1411 (74)

732 (72)

1.2 (0.9–1.5)

 

  Don’t know

476 (16)

311 (16)

165 (16)

1.2 (0.9–1.6)

0.42

An HPV infection is a risk for cervical cancer (n=2930)

   

  No

215 (7)

144 (8)

71 (7)

ref

 

  Yes

2370 (81)

1555 (81)

815 (80)

0.9 (0.7–1.3)

 

  Don’t know

345 (12)

216 (11)

129 (13)

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

0.48

An HPV infection can cause genital warts (n=2929)

   

  No

537 (18)

354 (18)

183 (18)

ref

 

  Yes

582 (20)

389 (20)

193 (19)

1.0 (0.8–1.3)

 

  Don’t know

1810 (62)

1172 (61)

638 (63)

1.0 (0.8–1.2)

0.63

An HPV infection usually disappears on its own (n=2930)

   

  No

1969 (67)

1301 (68)

668 (66)

ref

 

  Yes

136 (5)

80 (4)

56 (6)

0.7 (0.5–1.0)

 

  Don’t know

825 (28)

534 (28)

291 (29)

0.9 (0.8–1.1)

0.21

Awareness of CC screening program (n=2910)

   

  No

1421 (49)

984(52)

437 (43)

ref

 

  Yes

1489 (51)

921 (48)

568 (57)

0.7 (0.6–0.8)

<0.001

Participation of mother in CC screening program (n=2910)

   

  No

670 (23)

410 (22)

260 (26)

ref

 

  Yes

1192 (41)

798 (42)

394 (39)

1.3 (1.1–1.6)

 

  Don’t know

1048 (36)

697 (37)

351 (35)

1.3 (1.0–1.5)

0.03

Need to participate in the CC screening program after vaccination (n=2910)

  

  No

174 (6)

115 (6)

59 (6)

ref

 

  Yes

2013 (69)

1346 (71)

667 (66)

1.0 (0.7–1.4)

 

  Don’t know

723 (25)

444 (23)

279 (28)

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

0.03

Condoms are not needed anymore once vaccinated (n=2909)

   

  No

2781 (96)

1842 (97)

939 (94)

ref

 

  Yes

22 (1)

15 (1)

7 (1)

1.1 (0.5–2.9)

 

  Don’t know

106 (3)

48 (3)

58 (6)

0.4 (0.3–0.6)

<0.001

Girls will use less condoms once vaccinated (n=2909)

   

  No

1526 (52)

1076 (56)

450 (45)

ref

 

  Yes

574 (20)

317 (17)

257 (26)

0.5 (0.4–0.6)

 

  Don’t know

809 (28)

512 (27)

297 (30)

0.7 (0.6–0.9)

<0.001

General knowledge score

   

  mean (95% CI)

5.52 (5.48–5.56)

5.51 (5.47–5.56)

5.53 (5.47–5.59)

 

0.62

CC = cervical cancer.

Missing values are deducted from the total number of girls.

Cervical screening

Vaccinated girls reported more often that their mother participated in the cervical cancer screening program, and that it would still be necessary to participate in such a program after being vaccinated. However, they were less aware of the existence of this program (Table 3).

Knowledge on HPV infectiousness

Most girls were familiar with the association between unsafe vaginal sex and transmission of HPV. This knowledge was lower for other forms of sex, such as unsafe anal or oral sex. A low proportion knew that HPV could be transmitted via skin-to-skin contact or by stroking their partner’s genitals (Table 4). The HPV transmission knowledge score also showed no difference in univariable analysis.
Table 4

HPV transmission knowledge amongst all girls participating in our study (n = 2989), the Netherlands 2010

Category

Total

Vaccinated

Unvaccinated

OR (95% CI) for being vaccinated

P-value

N (%)

n (%)

n (%)

 

2989 (100)

1938 (65)

1051 (35)

  

HPV can be transmitted via;

    

  Holding hands (no) (n=2924)

   

    No

2884 (99)

1882 (99)

1002 (99)

ref

 

    Yes

40 (1)

28 (1)

12 (1)

1.2 (0.6–2.5)

0.53

  Deep throat kissing (no) (n=2927)

   

    No

2622 (90)

1711 (89)

911 (90)

ref

 

    Yes

305 (10)

202 (11)

103 (10)

1.0 (0.8–1.3)

0.74

   Skin to skin contact (yes) (n=2926)

   

    No

2646 (90)

1727 (90)

919 (91)

ref

 

    Yes

280 (10)

185 (10)

95 (9)

1.0 (0.8–1.3)

0.79

   Stroking partner at genitals (yes) (n=2927)

   

    No

2000 (68)

1326 (69)

674 (66)

ref

 

    Yes

927 (32)

587 (31)

340 (34)

0.9 (0.7–1.0)

0.12

  Public toilet (no) (n=2926)

   

    No

2411 (82)

1575 (82)

836 (83)

ref

 

    Yes

515 (18)

338 (18)

177 (17)

1.0 (0.8–1.2)

0.89

   Unprotected oral sex (yes) (n=2928)

   

    No

1078 (37)

695 (36)

383 (38)

ref

 

    Yes

1850 (63)

1219 (64)

631 (62)

1.1 (0.9–1.2)

0.44

   Unprotected vaginal sex (yes) (n=2929)

   

    No

144 (5)

96 (5)

48 (5)

ref

 

    Yes

2785 (95)

1818 (95)

967 (95)

0.9 (0.7–1.3)

0.73

   Unprotected anal sex (yes) (n=2928)

   

    No

865 (30)

568 (30)

297 (29)

ref

 

    Yes

2063 (70)

1345 (70)

718 (71)

1.0 (0.8–1.2)

0.81

   Sex with a condom (n=2927)

   

    No

2533 (87)

1674 (88)

859 (85)

ref

 

    Yes

394 (12)

238 (12)

156 (15)

0.8 (0.6–1.0)

0.03

  Sharing a spoon or cup (no) (n=2925)

   

    No

2739 (94)

1777 (93)

962 (95)

ref

 

    Yes

186 (6)

134 (7)

52 (5)

1.4 (1.0–2.0)

0.05

  Sneezing/coughing (no) (n=2924)

   

    No

2753 (94)

1794 (94)

959 (95)

ref

 

    Yes

171 (6)

116 (6)

55 (5)

1.1 (0.8–1.6)

0.48

Transmission knowledge score

    

   Mean (95% CI)

7.24 (7.19–7.28)

7.24 (7.16–7.31)

7.24 (7.18–7.29)

 

0.99

Missing values are deducted from the total number of girls.

Correct answer is shown in brackets.

Multivariable analysis of predictors for vaccine receipt

Variables whose association with vaccination status approached significance (P-value ≤0.1) were fitted in a multivariable logistic regression model (Table 5). The factors that remained independently associated with being vaccinated were living in low urbanised areas, consuming alcohol, not being sexually active, using contraceptive methods and not being aware of the cervical cancer screening program. Additionally, girls ascribing to no religion and those who professed a Catholic faith were more likely to be vaccinated than those that were either Protestant or who belonged to another religion. Vaccinated girls were also more likely to report that their mothers participated in the cervical cancer screening program or not knowing their mother’s participation status in this screening program.
Table 5

Multivariable analysis amongst all girls participating in our study (n = 2989), the Netherlands 2010

Risk factor

Univariablea

Multivariableb,c

P-value

 

OR (95% CI)

aOR (95% CI)

 

Degree of urbanisation

  

  Low (1–1000 inhabitants)

ref

ref

 

  High (>1000 inhabitants)

0.8 (0.7–0.9)

0.8 (0.7–1.0)

0.02

Religion

  

  No religion

ref

ref

 

  Catholics

1.2 (1.0–1.5)

1.2 (0.9–1.4)

0.15

  Protestant Christian

0.4 (0.4–0.5)

0.5 (0.4–0.6)

<0.001

  Other

0.3 (0.1–0.7)

0.3 (0.1–0.9)

0.03

Alcohol use

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

1.4 (1.2–1.7)

1.3 (1.0–1.6)

0.01

Contraception

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

1.5 (1.3–1.8)

1.5 (1.2–1.9)

<0.001

Ever had sex

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

0.8 (0.6–1.0)

0.04

Awareness of CC screening program

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

0.7 (0.6–0.8)

0.7 (0.6–0.8)

<0.001

Participation of mother to CC screening program

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

1.3 (1.1–1.6)

1.6 (1.2–2.0)

<0.001

  Don’t know

1.3 (1.0–1.5)

1.3 (1.0–1.6)

0.03

HPV vaccination protects against all HPV types

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

2.2 (1.7–2.9)

2.4 (1.8–3.2)

<0.001

  Don’t know

1.4 (1.2–1.7)

1.5 (1.2–1.8)

<0.001

Girls will use less condoms once vaccinated

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

0.5 (0.4–0.6)

0.5 (0.4–0.6)

<0.001

  Don’t know

0.7 (0.6–0.9)

0.7 (0.5–0.8)

0.002

Condom use is not needed anymore once vaccinated

  

  No

ref

ref

 

  Yes

1.1 (0.5–2.9)

1.5 (0.5–5.6)

0.5

  Don’t know

0.4 (0.3–0.6)

0.4 (0.2–0.6)

<0.001

CC = cervical cancer.

a196 cases missing.

bOnly variables with a P–value less than 0.1 in the univariable analysis were entered.

cnot significant in multivariable analysis, (P > 0.05) (not presented in Table): HPV can be transmitted via a spoon, HPV can be transmitted when using condoms.

Furthermore, considering perceptions of HPV, vaccinated girls thought more often that HPV vaccination protects against all HPV types and were less likely to think that girls would use condoms less frequently once vaccinated. Interestingly, more unvaccinated girls did not know that condoms were still needed after vaccination.

Discussion

This population-based study is one of the first that examined actual determinants for individual vaccine uptake instead of willingness to be vaccinated. Vaccinated and unvaccinated girls were comparable with regard to education, education of parents, ethnicity, most sexual risk behaviour and had similar scores on knowledge of HPV infection and HPV transmission. They differed with respect to characteristics such as urbanisation degree, religion, contraceptive use, number of lifetime sexual partners and importantly, their opinions on the use of condoms after HPV vaccination and the protection of vaccination against all HPV types.

Studies in the Netherlands have shown that women who are non-Dutch nationals and have a lower socio-economic status are less likely to participate in the cervical cancer screening program [14, 15]. These risk factors for non-attendance were not observed in this study for girls who chose not to be vaccinated. We found no relationship between uptake and ethnicity, nor education of the girl or their parents or SES score (both indicators of socio-economic status), which could suggest that the two programs might strengthen each other Another Dutch study also concluded that vaccination and screening (assessed by reported screening behaviour of the mother) complement each other to a large extent [25].

Religion has influenced vaccination decision-making process since the beginning of vaccination efforts [26]. Anti-vaccination proponents were most common in countries with a high proportion of Protestants [27]. In our study, identifying as a Protestant Christian was related to a lower vaccination uptake, as opposed to identifying as a Catholic or not following a religion. In addition to specific religious groups among the Protestant Christians (such as Orthodox reformed), the reluctance towards HPV vaccination might be extended amongst a broader group of Protestant Christians because of the link with a sexually transmitted infection. Participation in screening programs has not been found to be lower in Dutch regions with higher proportion of religious groups [25], highlighting again the possible complementarity between screening and vaccination.

Contradicting results regarding the influence of HPV knowledge and perceptions on vaccination uptake have been reported [28]. Consistent with a Dutch study on acceptance of HPV vaccination [29], we obtained no differences on vaccination uptake with regard to the general HPV knowledge score, nor on the HPV transmission knowledge score. Regardless of vaccination status, as many as 80% of the girls knew of the relationship between HPV and cervical cancer, which was similar to some other studies (81% Lenselink CH et al. [29], 84% Gerend MA and Shepherd JE [28], 85-93% Marlow LA et al. [30] program.

In general, only 50% of the young girls in our study recognised that after an HPV vaccination it is still indicated to participate in the cervical cancer screening program (which takes place from age 30 onwards in the Netherlands). This fact has also been reported by Bowyer HL et al. [31] amongst a group of 15–16 year old girls, where only 47% was aware cervical screening is still necessary after vaccination. We also found that vaccinated girls were less aware of the fact that vaccination does not protect against all HPV types. The continued importance of cervical screening in the Netherlands has to be emphasised along with the benefits of HPV vaccination. The finding that vaccinated girls report more often that their mothers participate in the cervical cancer screening program seems somewhat contradictory to their lower awareness about this program. Paulussen TG et al. [32] reported that a major part of the population does not make a well thought decision with regard to vaccinations in the regular National Immunization Program). These parents regard vaccination as self-evident. Similarly, this might be so for a part of mothers with regard to participation in screening, which possibly results in less discussion on the topic and thus less knowledge among their daughters.

In our study, only 2-3% reported that HPV vaccination had changed their sexual behaviour in the first year after vaccination. However, Marlow LA et al. [33] found that one-third of adolescent girls interviewed, thought that HPV vaccination would make girls in general more likely to have unsafe sex. Swedish high-school students did not think it that they themselves would engage in more unsafe sex after HPV vaccination but that other girls might [34]. We found a similar opinion concerning anticipated risk behaviour and condom use. Nearly all girls reported that they would not reduce condom use after HPV vaccination (only 1% for both groups), but 17% (vaccinated) and 26% (unvaccinated) thought other girls would.

There were no significant differences amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated girls for reported condom use with a casual or steady partner. However, sexually active vaccinated girls were more aware of the risk of HPV infection when engaging in unprotected sex. Irrespective of vaccination status, only a quarter of the girls reported to always use condoms with a casual partner and 18% with a steady partner. In line with Mather T et al. [35] inconsistent or no condom use was reported by 50% of the girls with a casual partner. Although most of the girls (65%) in our study reported using other contraceptive methods, the risk of acquiring HPV or another STI through unprotected sex seems to be high in this population. Therefore, early HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls will considerably decrease the risk of HPV infection at a later and more sexually active age.

With regard to other sexual risk factors we found that among the vaccinated sexually active girls, a somewhat lower mean number of lifetime sexual partners was reported. However, no differences were found for other sexual behavioural characteristics such as age of sexual debut and history of STIs. These results imply that girls who decided not to get vaccinated were not the ones with increased (sexual) risk behaviour. Thus in contrast to screening, where it has been found that more than half of the cervical cancer cases were found in women who did not attend screening, it seems that although these girls are not benefiting from vaccination, they have no disproportional disadvantage compared to vaccinated girls.

This study has several strengths. Firstly, it was a randomly selected, large, nationwide population-based study. Secondly, vaccination status was derived from a national vaccination database instead of being self-reported. Thirdly, we obtained information on the actual vaccination uptake instead of the intention to vaccinate.

Although a limitation of this study was a relatively low response rate (15%), online surveys/questionnaires, while advantageous, are known for their average lower response rate compared to mail or telephone surveys [36, 37]. Similar or lower response rates were obtained in other studies directed to parents of girls targeted for HPV catch-up vaccination (16%-24%) [38] or to participants recruited from Praeventis (7%) [39]. The response was higher amongst vaccinated than unvaccinated girls (19% vs. 11%) similar to other studies [38]. In order to assess the effect of this response rate we determined if the characteristics of the study population were similar to those of girls in the general population, by comparing our data on education, ethnicity and age of sexual debut. Girls in our study were comparable with respect to sexual debut with another Dutch study [40] but were slightly higher educated than the general Dutch population (59% vs. 47%), and were more often not Dutch (4.7% vs. 3.3%) [41]. Nevertheless, our sample size was adequate for the proposed statistical analysis of association with vaccine uptake and the possible influence of differences in ethnicity and education were controlled for in the multivariable analysis. Finally, although we have no indications that our results are not applicable to 12-year old girls that are targeted in the routine HPV vaccination program, we cannot rule out that this might be somewhat different. That is, the decision-process towards vaccine uptake may be more influenced by parents/caregivers in this younger age group.

Conclusions

Routine HPV vaccination in the Netherlands has the potential to reduce the inequity of prevention of cervical cancer. In particular, vaccination uptake was not associated with factors that are known to be associated with non-attendance in the cervical cancer screening program, such as education and ethnicity. Furthermore, most sexual characteristics were comparable amongst both groups indicating that unvaccinated girls are probably not at higher risk of exposure to HPV compared to vaccinated girls. Although in general knowledge could be improved, the large majority of participants knew HPV caused cervical cancer suggesting an informed vaccination choice was made.

Authors’ information

Madelief Mollers and Karin Lubbers shared first authorship.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following persons:

All girls who participated in the study.

Petra Oomen, from Regional Coordination of Programs/Purchase, Storage and Distribution (RCP/IOD), Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands, for providing the individual data from the national vaccination registers (Praeventis).

Nynke Koelma, who was involved in the initial design of the study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Epidemiology and Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
(2)
Pathology, VU University Medical Center (VUmc)
(3)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
(4)
Department of Medical Microbiology, Molecular Virology Section, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
(5)
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht
(6)
Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen

References

  1. Baseman JG, Koutsky LA: The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol. 2005, 32 (Suppl 1): 16-24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Koutsky L: Epidemiology of genital human papilloma virus infection. Am J Med. 1997, 102 (Suppl 5A): 3-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown DR, Shew ML, Qadadri B, Neptune N, Vargas M, Tu W, Juliar BE, Breen TE, Fortenberry JD: A longitudinal study of genital human papillomavirus infection in a cohort of closely followed adolescent women. J Infect Dis. 2005, 191: 182-192. 10.1086/426867.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ho G, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD: Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med. 1998, 338: 423-428. 10.1056/NEJM199802123380703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Moscicki A-B, Schiffman M, Kjaer S, Villa LL: Chapter 5: updating the natural history of HPV and anogenital cancer. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (Suppl 3): 42-51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. zur Hausen H, Gissmann L, Steiner W, Dippold W, Dreger J: Human papilloma viruses and cancer. Bibl Haematol. 1975, 43: 569-571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Castellsagué X, Muñoz N, Pitisuttithum P, Ferris D, Monsonego J, Ault K, Luna J, Myers E, Mallary S, Bautista OM, Bryan J, Vuocolo S, Haupt RM, Saah A: End-of-study safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in adult women 24–45 years of age. Br J Cancer. 2011, 105: 28-37. 10.1038/bjc.2011.185.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Lehtinen M, Paavonen J, Wheeler CM, Jaisamrarn U, Garland SM, Castellsagué X, Skinner SR, Apter D, Naud P, Salmerón J, Chow S-N, Kitchener H, Teixeira JC, Hedrick J, Limson G, Szarewski A, Romanowski B, Aoki FY, Schwarz TF, Poppe WJ, De Carvalho NS, Germar MJV, Peters K, Mindel A, De Sutter P, Bosch FX, David M-P, Descamps D, Struyf F, Dubin G: Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13: 89-99. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70286-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. van Lier EAOP, Giesbers H, Drijfhout IH, de Hoogh PAAM, de Melker HE: RIVM rapport nr. 201001001. Vaccinatiegraad Rijksvaccinatieprogramma Nederland: Verslagjaar 2012. 2012, Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en MilieuGoogle Scholar
  10. Brabin L, Roberts SA, Stretch R, Baxter D, Elton P, Kitchener H, McCann R: A survey of adolescent experiences of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Manchester study. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101: 1502-1504. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605362.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Chao C, Velicer C, Slezak JM, Jacobsen SJ: Correlates for completion of 3-dose regimen of HPV vaccine in female members of a managed care organization. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009, 84: 864-870. 10.4065/84.10.864.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulk S, Visser O, Rozendaal L, Verheijen RH, Meijer CJ: Cervical cancer in the Netherlands 1989–1998: decrease of squamous cell carcinoma in older women, increase of adenocarcinoma in younger women. Int J Cancer. 2005, 113 (6): 1005-1009. 10.1002/ijc.20678.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rebolj M, van Ballegooijen M, Berkers LM, Habbema D: Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2007, 120 (4): 806-812. 10.1002/ijc.22167.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. van Leeuwen AW, de Nooijer P, Hop WC: Screening for cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 2005, 105: 270-276. 10.1002/cncr.21153.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. van der Aa MA, Schutter EM, Looijen-Salamon M, Martens JE, Siesling S: Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992–2001. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008, 139: 204-209. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bulk S, Visser O, Rozendaal L, Verheijen RH, Meijer CJ: Incidence and survival rate of women with cervical cancer in the Greater Amsterdam area. Br J Cancer. 2003, 89: 834-839. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601157.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillard JP: An application of the integrative model to women’s intention to be vaccinated against HPV: implications for message design. Health Commun. 2011, 26: 479-486. 10.1080/10410236.2011.554170.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang HS, Moneyham L: Attitudes toward and intention to receive the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination and intention to use condoms among female Korean college students. Vaccine. 2010, 28: 811-6. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim HW: Knowledge about human papillomavirus (HPV), and health beliefs and intention to recommend HPV vaccination for girls and boys among Korean health teachers. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 5327-5334. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tiro JA, Tsui J, Bauer HM, Yamada E, Kobrin S, Breen N: Human papillomavirus vaccine use among adolescent girls and young adult women: an analysis of the 2007 california health interview survey. J Womens Health. 2012, 21: 656-665. 10.1089/jwh.2011.3284.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessels SJM, Marshall HS, Watson M, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Reuzel R, Tooher RL: Factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in teenage girls: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 3546-3556. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.063.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van Lier A, Oomen P, de Hoogh P, Drijfhout I, Elsinghorst B, Kemmeren J, Conyn-van Spaendonck M, de Melker H: Praeventis, the immunisation register of the netherlands: a tool to evaluate the national immunisation program. Euro Surveill. 2012, 17 (17):
  23. Helsinki declaration. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3,
  24. Knol F: From high to low; from low to high: the social development of districts between 1971 and 1995 [in dutch]. The hague; the Netherlands institute for social research. 1998Google Scholar
  25. Steens A, Wielders CC, Bogaards JA, Boshuizen HC, de Greeff SC, de Melker HE: Association between human papillomavirus vaccine uptake and cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands: implications for future impact on prevention. Int J Cancer. 2013, 132: 932-943. 10.1002/ijc.27671.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Grabenstein JD: What the world’s religions teach, applied to vaccines and immune globulins. Vaccine. 2013, 31 (16): 2011-2023. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.02.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. White A: Theological opposition to inoculation, vaccination, and the use of anæsthetics. A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom. Chapter 13. SAGE software, albany, oregon. 1996, New York: D. Appleton and Company, Accessible at: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/ Google Scholar
  28. Gerend MA, Shepherd JE: Correlates of HPV knowledge in the era of HPV vaccination: a study of unvaccinated young adult women. Women Health. 2011, 51: 25-40. 10.1080/03630242.2011.540744.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenselink CH, Schmeink CE, Melchers WJ, Massuger LF, Hendriks JC, van Hamont D, Bekkers RL: Young adults and acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Public Health. 2008, 122: 1295-1301. 10.1016/j.puhe.2008.02.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Marlow LA, Zimet GD, McCaffery KJ, Ostini R, Waller J: Knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV vaccination: an international comparison. Vaccine. 2012, 31: 763-769.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bowyer HL, Marlow LA, Hibbitts S, Pollock KG, Waller J: Knowledge and awareness of HPV and the HPV vaccine among young women in the first routinely vaccinated cohort in England. Vaccine. 2013, 31: 1051-1056. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Paulussen TG, Hoekstra F, Lanting CI, Buijs GB, Hirasing RA: Determinants of Dutch parents’ decisions to vaccinate their child. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (5): 644-651. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.08.053.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Marlow LAV, Forster AS, Wardle J, Waller J: Mothers’ and adolescents’ beliefs about risk compensation following HPV vaccination. J Adolesc Health. 2009, 44: 446-451. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.09.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Höglund AT, Tydén T, Hannerfors AK, Larsson M: Knowledge of human papillomavirus and attitudes to vaccination among Swedish high school students. Int J STD AIDS. 2009, 20: 102-107. 10.1258/ijsa.2008.008200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mather T, McCaffery K, Juraskova I: Does HPV vaccination affect women’s attitudes to cervical cancer screening and safe sexual behaviour?. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 3196-3201. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.081.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Monroe M, Adams D: Increasing response rates to web-based surveys. Journal of Extension [Online]. 2012, 50 (6): Article 6TOT7Google Scholar
  37. Bergeson SC, Gray J, Ehrmantraut LA, Laibson T, Hays RD: Comparing Web-based with mail survey administration of the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (CAHPS) clinician and group survey. Prim Health Care. 2013, 3: 1000132-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Gefenaite G, Smit M, Nijman HW, Tami A, Drijfhout IH, Pascal A, Postma MJ, Wolters BA, van Delden JJ, Wilschut JC, Hak E: Comparatively low attendance during human papillomavirus catch-up vaccination among teenage girls in the Netherlands: insights from a behavioral survey among parents. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12: 498-10.1186/1471-2458-12-498.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. van Keulen HM, Otten W, Ruiter RA, Fekkes M, van Steenbergen J, Dusseldorp E, Paulussen TW: Determinants of HPV vaccination intentions among Dutch girls and their mothers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2013, 13: 111-10.1186/1471-2458-13-111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. de Graaf H, Meijer S, Poelman J: Sex Under 25 [in Dutch]. 2005, Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon Publishers, Rutgers Nisso GroepGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistics Netherlands. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb,
  42. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/288/prepub

Copyright

© Mollers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.