- About this Journal ·
- Abstracting and Indexing ·
- Aims and Scope ·
- Article Processing Charges ·
- Articles in Press ·
- Author Guidelines ·
- Bibliographic Information ·
- Citations to this Journal ·
- Contact Information ·
- Editorial Board ·
- Editorial Workflow ·
- Free eTOC Alerts ·
- Publication Ethics ·
- Reviewers Acknowledgment ·
- Submit a Manuscript ·
- Subscription Information ·
- Table of Contents
Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 12 (2004), Issue 3-4, Pages 127-133
Gynecologists' Attitudes Regarding Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination: A Survey of Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City 52242, IA, USA
2Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
3Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
4Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Copyright © 2004 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background: Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the causative agent of cervical neoplasia and genital warts. A vaccine has recently been developed that may prevent infection with HPV. Vaccination for HPV may become a routine part of office gynecology. We surveyed members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to determine their attitudes to HPV vaccination.
Methods: A survey was sent to Fellows of ACOG to evaluate gynecologists' attitudes. Vaccine acceptability was analyzed using 13 scenarios with the following dimensions and respective attributes: age of patient (3, 17 and 22 years); efficacy of vaccine (50% or 80%); ACOG recommendation (yes or no); and disease targeted (cervical cancer, warts or both). Each scenario was rated by means of an 11-point response format (0 to 100). Responses were evaluated using conjoint analysis.
Results: Of 1200surveys that were sent out, 181 were returned and included in our analysis. ACOG recommendation was considered the most important variable in vaccine distribution (importance score = 32.2), followed by efficacy (24.5), age (22.4) and, lastly, disease targeted (20.9). Of these variables, higher efficacy was favored; preference was given to age 17 years, with a strong disinclination to vaccinate at age 13 years; and protection against cervical cancer, or genital warts, or both, was significantly favored over a vaccine against genital warts alone. Demographic characteristics of the gynecologists (i.e., age of physician, gender, practice setting and community size) did not play an important role in the decision to recommend vaccination.
Conclusion: Professional society recommendation is important for acceptability of a potential HPV vaccine. Gynecologists are willing to include this vaccine in their office practice.