Cited by 58Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Knowledge and acceptability of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening among women in Karnataka, India

Montgomery, Martha P., Dune, Tanaka, Shetty, Prasanna K., Shetty, Avinash K.·2015·Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women in India; however, participation in prevention and screening is low and the reasons for this are not well understood. In a cross-sectional survey in August 2008, 202 healthy women in Karnataka, India completed a questionnaire regarding knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Factors associated with vaccination and Papanicolau (Pap) smear screening acceptance were explored. Thirty-six percent of women had heard of HPV while 15% had heard of cervical cancer. Five percent of women reported ever having a Pap smear, and 4% of women felt at risk of HPV infection. Forty-six percent of women were accepting of vaccination, but fewer (21%) were willing to have a Pap smear. Overall, knowledge related to HPV and cervical cancer topics was low. Women with negative attitudes toward HPV infection were 5.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-10) times more likely to accept vaccination but were not significantly more likely to accept Pap smear (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 0.7-3.0). Cost and a low level of perceived risk were the most frequent factors cited as potential barriers. Improving awareness of HPV and cervical cancer through health care providers in addition to increasing access to vaccination and screening through government-sponsored programs may be feasible and effective methods to reduce cervical cancer burden in India.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13187-014-0745-4

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montgomery, M. P., Dune, T., Shetty, P. K., & Shetty, A. K.
Affiliations
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • Nitte University (IN)
Corresponding author
Shetty, Avinash K.
Venue
Journal of Cancer Education
Published
2014-10-31
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
130-137
ISSN
  • 0885-8195 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-0154
OpenAlex
W2090160518
Cited by
58
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
human papillomavirus, cervical cancer, HPV vaccination, cervical cancer screening, Pap smear, vaccine acceptance, screening acceptance, knowledge, attitudes and practices, risk perception, cost barriers, women's health, Karnataka
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Health, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, India, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Perception, Prognosis, Women's Health, Risk Assessment, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review