The Knowledge and Attitudes of University Students concerning HPV Vaccine and Cervical Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cervical cancer is preventable with regular PAP tests and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Objective Identify factors influencing initiation into regular sexual health examinations within a group of undergraduate health science students who have high parental SES. Methods After reviewing the literature, a survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors about HPV exposure and cervical cancer prevention through vaccination and cervical cancer screening was developed. The survey was circulated using a web-based survey tool to undergraduate Faculty of Health Sciences student. Results Two hundred and three students at McMaster University completed the survey. The sample included 72% women and 28% men. The mean age was 19.4 years. This sample represents a population of young adults who the previous literature would suggest are most likely to have regular health care since they are affluent (FAS greater than 6.7 ∓ 1.4). This group is also motivated in health education as 83.3% knew about the HPV vaccine and 76.4% could define the purpose of a PAP smear. Both male and female students were more likely to consult their family doctor about sexual health than their family. More than half of sexually active females have a family doctor, 82.1% of which visit them regularly. Sexually active women visit more regularly than sexually inactive women (p ≤ 0.01). The majority (66%) are comfortable discussing sexual health with their family doctor, yet only 62.5% of women have had this discussion. 57% of sexually active women and less that 1% of non-sexually active women had had a PAP smear or a pelvic exam. Conclusion These affluent and well educated students do not appear to be able to apply their knowledge of HPV and PAP smears to their own sexual health. Thus they require access to tools that help motivate university students to personalize information and make important health decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".