Potential effects of decreased cervical cancer screening participation after HPV vaccination: An example from the U.S.
Abstract
A concern with widespread implementation of HPV vaccination programs is that women may mistakenly decide that they do not need to be screened any longer, and thus be less likely to participate in cervical cancer screening, because they view themselves to be at low-risk of developing cervical cancer. We hypothesized that non-participation in screening among vaccinated young women in the 5 years following vaccination may result in missed CIN 2-3 cases that could progress to cancer. For instance, if 50% fewer women 26-30 years old, who were vaccinated, participate in screening in the United States over a 5 year time horizon, there would be approximately 4 women (per 1000) with missed CIN 2-3. On the other hand, non-participation will reduce the number of false-positive screening test results, as non-participation would avoid approximately 27 false-positive test results, with a decrease in follow-up procedures and costs. These results highlight the importance of educating women to ensure continued screening, as well as the need to consider new approaches to screening in the era of vaccination.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The suggestion that vaccination could result in a perceived false sense of protection against cervical cancer has not been supported by the current literature.
“The suggestion that vaccination could result in a perceived false sense of protection against CC has also not been supported by the current literature. 134”
From Identifying the key barriers, facilitators and factors associated with cervical cancer screening attendance in young women: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [134]
Cites
Myers, E. R., McCrory, D. C., Nanda, K., Bastian, L., & Matchar, D. B. (2000) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010166 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shpendi, S., Norman, P., Gibson-Miller, J., & Webster, R. (2025) · Women's Health · doi:10.1177/17455057251324309 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kulasingam, S. L., Pagliusi, S., & Myers, E.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kulasingam, Shalini L.
- Venue
- Vaccine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 48
- Pages
- 8110-8113
- ISSN
- 0264-410X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008234139
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Vaccine (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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination, screening uptake, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, missed diagnosis, false-positive screening results, young women, screening follow-up, screening costs, health education
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Public Health, United States, Vaccination, Papillomavirus Infections, 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