Paul L Reiter1, Annie-Laurie McRee2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sexual minority women are at risk for infection with human papillomavirus (HPV); yet, relatively little is known about the prevalence of HPV infection among this population. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2003-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey among women aged 20-59 (n=7132). We examined two dimensions of sexual orientation (sexual identity and sexual behaviour) and used weighted logistic regression to determine how HPV infection outcomes (any HPV type, high-risk HPV type and vaccine HPV type) vary by dimension. RESULTS: Similar patterns emerged for sexual identity and sexual behaviour. In bivariate analyses, HPV infection outcomes were more common among non-heterosexual women compared with heterosexual women (any type: 49.7% vs 41.1%; high-risk type: 37.0% vs 27.9%), as well as among women who reported any same-sex partners compared with women who reported only opposite-sex partners (any type: 55.9% vs 41.0%; high-risk type: 37.7% vs 28.2%; vaccine type: 19.1% vs 14.0%) (p<0.05). When we disaggregated measures of sexual orientation into subgroups, bisexual women and women who reported partners of both sexes had greater odds of HPV infection outcomes (p<0.05 in bivariate analyses). Multivariate models attenuated several of these differences, though lesbian women and women who reported only same-sex partners had lower odds of most HPV infection outcomes in multivariate analyses (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HPV infection is common among sexual minority women, though estimates vary depending on how sexual orientation is operationalised. Results can help inform targeted HPV and cervical cancer prevention efforts for sexual minority women. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVES: Sexual minority women are at risk for infection with human papillomavirus (HPV); yet, relatively little is known about the prevalence of HPV infection among this population. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2003-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey among women aged 20-59 (n=7132). We examined two dimensions of sexual orientation (sexual identity and sexual behaviour) and used weighted logistic regression to determine how HPV infection outcomes (any HPV type, high-risk HPV type and vaccine HPV type) vary by dimension. RESULTS: Similar patterns emerged for sexual identity and sexual behaviour. In bivariate analyses, HPV infection outcomes were more common among non-heterosexual women compared with heterosexual women (any type: 49.7% vs 41.1%; high-risk type: 37.0% vs 27.9%), as well as among women who reported any same-sex partners compared with women who reported only opposite-sex partners (any type: 55.9% vs 41.0%; high-risk type: 37.7% vs 28.2%; vaccine type: 19.1% vs 14.0%) (p<0.05). When we disaggregated measures of sexual orientation into subgroups, bisexual women and women who reported partners of both sexes had greater odds of HPV infection outcomes (p<0.05 in bivariate analyses). Multivariate models attenuated several of these differences, though lesbian women and women who reported only same-sex partners had lower odds of most HPV infection outcomes in multivariate analyses (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:HPV infection is common among sexual minority women, though estimates vary depending on how sexual orientation is operationalised. Results can help inform targeted HPV and cervical cancer prevention efforts for sexual minority women. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Dorothy A Machalek; Mary Poynten; Fengyi Jin; Christopher K Fairley; Annabelle Farnsworth; Suzanne M Garland; Richard J Hillman; Kathy Petoumenos; Jennifer Roberts; Sepehr N Tabrizi; David J Templeton; Andrew E Grulich Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Anna R Giuliano; Alan G Nyitray; Aimée R Kreimer; Christine M Pierce Campbell; Marc T Goodman; Staci L Sudenga; Joseph Monsonego; Silvia Franceschi Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: L Stewart Massad; Xianhong Xie; Howard Minkoff; Teresa M Darragh; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Lorraine Sanchez-Keeland; D Heather Watts; Christine Colie; Howard D Strickler Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Susan Hariri; Elizabeth R Unger; Maya Sternberg; Eileen F Dunne; David Swan; Sonya Patel; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Emiko Petrosky; Joseph A Bocchini; Susan Hariri; Harrell Chesson; C Robinette Curtis; Mona Saraiya; Elizabeth R Unger; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Kaan Z Apaydin; Holly B Fontenot; Christina P C Borba; Derri L Shtasel; Sharon Ulery; Kenneth H Mayer; Alex S Keuroghlian Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Ashley E Stenzel; Gabriela Bustamante; Courtney A Sarkin; Katherine Harripersaud; Patricia Jewett; Deanna Teoh; Rachel I Vogel Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Kaan Z Apaydin; Holly B Fontenot; Derri Shtasel; Sannisha K Dale; Christina P C Borba; Christopher S Lathan; Lori Panther; Kenneth H Mayer; Alex S Keuroghlian Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Madeline B Deutsch; Sari L Reisner; Sarah Peitzmeier; Jennifer Potter; Dana Pardee; Jaclyn M W Hughto Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.868