Human Papilloma Virus vaccine and cervical cancer screening acceptability among adults in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pap test has been used for cervical cancer screening for more than four decades. A human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been approved for use in Canada and is commercially available now. These two preventive interventions should be considered simultaneously. General population support is an important factor for the successful combination of these interventions. The study had two objectives: 1) To assess practices, beliefs, and attitudes regarding Pap test screening and HPV immunization; 2) To identify socio-demographic factors for Pap screening and vaccine acceptability. METHODS: In 2006, 500 adults were invited to participate in a telephone survey in the region of Quebec City (urban and rural population, 600 000), Canada. Some neutral and standardized information on Pap test and HPV was provided before soliciting opinions. RESULTS: 471 adults (18-69 year-olds) answered the questionnaire, the mean age was 45 years, 67% were female, and 65% had college or university degree. Eighty-six percent of women had undergone at least one Pap-test in their life, 55% in the last year, and 15% from 1 to 3 years ago. Among screened women, the test had been performed in the last three years in 100% of 18-30 year-olds, but only in 67% of 60-69 year-olds (P < 0.0001). Only 15% of respondents had heard of HPV. Eighty-seven percent agreed that HPV vaccines could prevent cervical cancer, 73% that the vaccine has to be administered before the onset of sexual activity, 89% would recommend vaccination to their daughters and nieces. Among respondents < 25 years, 91% would agree to receive the vaccine if it is publicly funded, but only 72% would agree to pay $100/dose. CONCLUSION: There is an important heterogeneity in cervical cancer screening frequency and coverage. Despite low awareness of HPV infection, the majority of respondents would recommend or are ready to receive the HPV vaccine, but the cost could prevent its acceptability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".