OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge about cervical cancer and its primary and secondary prevention, and identify the sources of information about the disease among female high school and university students in Krakow, Poland. STUDY DESIGN: This study was based on a questionnaire consisting of 64 questions, divided into six parts: personal data, general knowledge about cervical cancer, estimation of risk factors, knowledge about primary prevention, knowledge about secondary prevention, and information sources. Data were collected from students aged 17-26 years over a 3-month period in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: Four hundred women living in Krakow or its vicinity were included in the study. Nearly all respondents (98.5%) had heard of cervical cancer, 89.4% were aware of the risk of death associated with cervical cancer, and 44.8% believed that the disease could affect them in the future. The interviewees considered genetics and family history to be the most important risk factors, followed by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and having multiple sex partners. Most (91.5%) respondents had not been vaccinated against HPV, 47.9% did not know where to go to get vaccinated, and 30.1% were unaware of vaccination as a prevention method. Most (91.5%) respondents were aware of cytological screening, and 86.5% thought that they should have it done in the future. Women who had not heard of cytological screening were more likely to be unaware of cervical cancer than women who had heard about cytological screening (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.49, p=0.0001). The Internet, television and newspapers were reported to be the main sources of information about the disease. CONCLUSIONS: General awareness of cervical cancer among young women in Poland is insufficient. HPV infection is not considered to be the major aetiological factor. A relatively high percentage of women in this study had never heard of the HPV vaccine as a way of preventing cervical cancer. Knowledge about cytological screening, however, appears to be much better.
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge about cervical cancer and its primary and secondary prevention, and identify the sources of information about the disease among female high school and university students in Krakow, Poland. STUDY DESIGN: This study was based on a questionnaire consisting of 64 questions, divided into six parts: personal data, general knowledge about cervical cancer, estimation of risk factors, knowledge about primary prevention, knowledge about secondary prevention, and information sources. Data were collected from students aged 17-26 years over a 3-month period in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: Four hundred women living in Krakow or its vicinity were included in the study. Nearly all respondents (98.5%) had heard of cervical cancer, 89.4% were aware of the risk of death associated with cervical cancer, and 44.8% believed that the disease could affect them in the future. The interviewees considered genetics and family history to be the most important risk factors, followed by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and having multiple sex partners. Most (91.5%) respondents had not been vaccinated against HPV, 47.9% did not know where to go to get vaccinated, and 30.1% were unaware of vaccination as a prevention method. Most (91.5%) respondents were aware of cytological screening, and 86.5% thought that they should have it done in the future. Women who had not heard of cytological screening were more likely to be unaware of cervical cancer than women who had heard about cytological screening (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.49, p=0.0001). The Internet, television and newspapers were reported to be the main sources of information about the disease. CONCLUSIONS: General awareness of cervical cancer among young women in Poland is insufficient. HPV infection is not considered to be the major aetiological factor. A relatively high percentage of women in this study had never heard of the HPV vaccine as a way of preventing cervical cancer. Knowledge about cytological screening, however, appears to be much better.
Authors: Katarzyna Jaglarz; Krzysztof A Tomaszewski; Wojciech Kamzol; Mirosława Puskulluoglu; Krzysztof Krzemieniecki Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Ghadeer K Al-Shaikh; Eman M Almussaed; Amel A Fayed; Farida H Khan; Sadiqa B Syed; Tahani N Al-Tamimi; Hala N Elmorshedy Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 1.484