Journal of Public Health

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 179–188 | Cite as

Attitudinal and socio-structural determinants of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination uptake: a quantitative multivariate analysis

  • Kati Kuitto
  • Susanne Pickel
  • Henning Neumann
  • Detlef Jahn
  • Hans-Robert Metelmann
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

The introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine enables for the first time in the history of cancer prevention the possibility of combating the major cause of a cancer even before its onset. The secondary prevention measure of cervical cancer screening has thus been complemented by a primary prevention measure. The aim of this study is to analyse the determinants of uptake of preventive measures against cervical cancer as a basis for comparing the determinants of screening attendance with those of HPV vaccination attendance.

Subject and methods

A population-based representative survey comprising 760 randomly selected women aged 14 to 65 was performed in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Prevention behaviour, attitudes towards cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination, and knowledge about cervical cancer and HPV were investigated by means of a structured questionnaire. Descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the determinants of screening and HPV vaccine uptake.

Results

Attendance both at screening and at HPV vaccination was best predicted by attitudinal factors. Positive connotations of cancer prevention measures and utility expectations, fear of cancer and high subjective risk perception were conducive to attendance at screening and HPV vaccination. Screening attendance was less regular among women of lower socioeconomic status. In contrast, HPV vaccination uptake was higher for young women with lower educational attainment and lower social class. Knowledge did not impact prevention behaviour significantly. There is no trade-off between screening and vaccination attendance; the vast majority of respondents was aware of the necessity of regular screening attendance even when vaccinated against HPV.

Conclusions

Uptake rates for existing primary and secondary prevention measures against cervical cancer can be enhanced by fostering perceptions of utility and positive connotations of regular screening and becoming vaccinated against HPV. Elderly women in particular should be encouraged to attend screening by means of a recall system. Given the low overall level of knowledge about cervical cancer and its risk factors, there is a need for education about the necessity and utility of prevention to reach women of all social classes.

Keywords

Cervical cancer prevention Cervical screening HPV vaccination Attitudes Socio-structural determinants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research project from which this article derives is settled within the framework of the multidisciplinary working group Cancer Politics at the University of Greifswald. The authors would like to thank members of the working group for constructive discussions at earlier stages of the project.

Conflict of interest

The authors disclose any relevant associations that might pose a conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen I (1988) Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen R (1995) Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 36:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen R, Newman JF (1973) Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Meml Fund q, Health Soc 51:95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin L, Ahmad F, McNally MJ, Steward D (2002) Breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women: a literature review using the health belief model. Women’s Health Issues 12:122–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer H, Allen S, Braun L (2000) Knowledge of human papillomavirus infection among young adult men and women: implications for health education and research. J Commun Health 25:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom JR, Hayes WA, Saunders F, Flatt C (1987) Cancer awareness and secondary prevention practices in Black Americans: Implications for intervention. Fam Commun Health 10:19–30Google Scholar
  7. BVF/DGGG (2007) Jährliche Krebsvorsorge trotz erweiterter Früherkennung wichtig. http://www.frauenaerzte-im-netz.de/de_news_652_1_210_j-hrliche-krebsvorsorge-trotz-erweiterter-fr-herkennung-wichtig.html. Accessed 10 Nov 2008
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008) CDC releases first estimate of human papillomavirus-associated cancer data. Press Release November 3 2008Google Scholar
  9. Consedine NS, Magai C, Krivoshekova YS, Ryzewicz L, Neugut AI (2004) Fear, anxiety, worry, and breast cancer screening behaviour: a critical review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:501–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dell L, Chen H, Ahmad F, Stewart D (2000) Knowledge about human papillomavirus among adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 96:653–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison process. Hum Relat 7:117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fylan F (1998) Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women’s attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. Br J Gen Pract 48:1509–1514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Harper DM (2009) Preliminary HPV vaccine results for women older than 25 years. Lancet 373:1921–1922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrero R, Munoz N (1999) Human papillomavirus and cancer. Cancer Surv 33:75–97Google Scholar
  15. Hill D, Wakefield M (2008) Understanding and influencing cancer-related beliefs and behaviour can improve outcome. Lancet Oncol 9:1020–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Junge B, Arab-Kohlmeier L, Tiefelsdorf M, Hoffmeister H (1992) Krebsfrüherkennung wird zu wenig genutzt. Repräsentative Ergebnisse aus dem Nationalen Gesundheits-Survey. Z Allg Med 68:816Google Scholar
  17. Kahl H, Holling H, Kamtsiuris P (1999) Inanspruchnahme von Früherkennungsuntersuchungen und Maßnahmen zur Gesundheitsförderung. Gesundheitswesen 61:163–168Google Scholar
  18. Klug SJ, Hetzer M, Blettner M (2005) Screening for breast and cervical cancer in a large German city: participation, motivation and knowledge of risk factors. Eur J Pub Health 15:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marquardt K, Broschewitz U et al (2007) Zervixkarzinom trotz Früherkennungsprogramm. Analyse von Teilnahmeraten und Tumorstadium. Frauenarzt 48:1086–1088Google Scholar
  20. Metelmann HR (2007) Umfrage zur Nicht-Nutzung von Krebsprävention. Im Mittelpunkt: Die Angst. Zahnärztliche Mitteilungen 97:128–130Google Scholar
  21. Metelmann HR, Kaduk W, Beier K, Buchstein H, Flessa S (2007a) The impact of cancer politics on oral cancer survival rates. AACR Meeting Abstracts, Apr 2007:LB-139Google Scholar
  22. Metelmann HR, Waite P, Kaduk W (2007b) The overall improvement of out come results in oral cancer appears to be related to early detection. AACR Meeting Abstracts, Dec 2007:A14Google Scholar
  23. RKI (2007) Mitteilung der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) am Robert Koch-Institut: Impfung gegen humane Papillomaviren (HPV) für Mädchen von 12 bis 17 Jahren – Empfehlung und Begründung. Epidemiologisches Bulletin 12:97–103Google Scholar
  24. Robra BP, Dierks ML (1990) Entwicklung der Teilnahme an den Krebsfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen der Frau. Gynäkologe 23:308–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenbrock R, Michel C (2007) Primäre Prävention. Bausteine für eine Gesundheitssicherung. MWV - Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  26. Rutter D, Quine L (ed) (2002) Changing health behaviour. Intervention and research with social cognition models. Open University Press, Buckingham, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  27. Schenck U, von Karsa L (2000) Cervical cancer screening in germany. Eur J Cancer 36:2221–2226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Slomovitz BM, Sun CC, Frumovitz M et al (2006) Are women ready for the HPV vaccine? Gynecol Oncol 103:151–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM et al (1999) Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 189:12–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Waller J, McCaffery K, Wardle J (2004) Beliefs about the risk factors for cervical cancer in a British population sample. Prev Med 38:745–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Waller J, Marlow LAV, Wardle J (2006) Mother’s attitudes towards preventing cervical cancer through human papillomavirus vaccination: a qualitative study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1257–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright TC, Huh WK, Monk BJ, Smith JS, Ault K, Herzog TJ (2008) Age considerations when vaccinating against HPV. Gynecol Oncol 109:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kati Kuitto
    • 1
  • Susanne Pickel
    • 1
  • Henning Neumann
    • 1
  • Detlef Jahn
    • 1
  • Hans-Robert Metelmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Cranio-Maxillo-Facial SurgeryUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations