Skip to main content

Table 3 HPV vaccination status as predictor of screening intention and risk perceptions

From: How does HPV vaccination status relate to risk perceptions and intention to participate in cervical screening? a survey study

Outcome

Total n included in analysis (unadjus-ted/adjusted)

n(%) HPV vaccinated with outcome (unadjusted/adjusted)

n(%) non-vaccinated with outcome (unadjusted/adjusted)

OR (unadjusted) for being HPV vaccinated (95 % CI)

p-value (unadjusted)

OR (adjusted)afor being HPV vaccinated (95 % CI)

p-value (adjusted)

Screening intention

 Yes vs. no/do not know

835/783

562 (87.1)/535 (87.0)

119 (62.6)/105 (62.5)

4.04 (2.78–5.87)

<0.0001

3.89 (2.50–6.06)

<0.0001

Perceived cervical cancer riskb

 <11 per 1000 women

910/856

5 (0.7)/5 (0.8)

12 (5.4)/11 (5.5)

0.13 (0.05–0.37)

0.0001

0.11 (0.03–0.39)

0.0005

 <101 per 1000 women

910/856

103 (15.0)/98 (14.9)

64 (28.6)/55 (27.5)

0.44 (0.31–0.63)

<0.0001

0.51 (0.33–0.78)

0.0019

 <501 per 1000 women

910/856

523 (76.2)/500 (76.2)

177 (79.0)/158 (79.0)

0.85 (0.59–1.23)

0.3917

0.71 (0.46–1.09)

0.1207

Perceived HPV vaccine effect

 <0 %

904/851

43 (6.3)/43 (6.6)

53 (24.3)/44 (22.6)

0.21 (0.13–0.32)

<0.0001

0.31 (0.18–0.51)

<0.0001

 <60 %

904/851

179 (24.8)/163 (24.9)

109 (50.0)/96 (49.2)

0.33 (0.24–0.45)

<0.0001

0.37 (0.25–0.53)

<0.0001

 <95 %

904/851

569 (82.9)/542 (82.6)

191 (87.6)/173 (88.7)

0.69 (0.44–1.08)

0.1024

0.67 (0.39–1.13)

0.1347

  1. aAdjusted for study arm and the following socio-demographic variables: Year of birth, ethnicity, degree of urbanisation in area of habitat, completed educational level, parents’ educational level, and primary care contacts within the previous year
  2. b for an unvaccinated woman