Cited by 26Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Among Academic and Community Physicians in Mangalore, India

Canon, Chelsea, Effoe, Valery, Shetty, Veena, Shetty, Avinash K.·2017·Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer found in Indian women. Two human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were approved for use in India in 2006; however, neither has become readily accepted. Physician attitudes and recommendations are crucial in the uptake of HPV vaccines among adolescent women in the USA; thus, we ought to investigate provider attitudes and practices related to HPV vaccination in India via a survey administered to 210 Indian physicians. Of the 210 physicians, 46 % were community physicians and 54 % were academic physicians. The correct response to HPV knowledge questions was identified around 50 % of the time in 6/11 questions. Only 47 % of the physicians knew that there was an HPV vaccine approved for use in India. Only 11 % and 15 % of physicians strongly agree that the HPV vaccine will lead to long-lasting immunity and has a safe side effect profile, respectively. A total of 30 % of those surveyed reported that they would recommend the HPV vaccine to their patients, while 73 % agreed that the cost of the HPV vaccine is a major barrier to acceptance. After multivariate analysis, there were two significant variables independently associated with a physician's decision to recommend HPV vaccine. These variables were as follows: "whether the vaccine was freely available from the government sector" and "uncertainty about whether HPV must be persistent to cause cervical cancer vs not." Given the lack of knowledge among practicing physicians in Mangalore, increas…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13187-016-0999-0

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Canon, C., Effoe, V., Shetty, V., & Shetty, A. K.
Affiliations
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Nitte University (IN)
Corresponding author
Shetty, Avinash K.
Venue
Journal of Cancer Education
Published
2016-02-16
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
382-391
ISSN
  • 0885-8195 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-0154
OpenAlex
W2278608197
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Infectious Diseases Society of America (US) (Medical Scholars Program)
  • American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (US) (Benjamin H. Kean Travel Fellowship)
  • Wake Forest School of Medicine (US) (Pennell Pro Humanitate Vitae Fund)
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, HPV vaccination, physician knowledge, physician attitudes, vaccine recommendations, cervical cancer, vaccine acceptance, vaccine cost barriers, academic physicians, community physicians, health care provider education, Mangalore
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, India, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Vaccines

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