Effectiveness of interventions for human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy among female university students based on the precaution adoption process model / 预防医学

ABSTRACT

Objective @#To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for human papillomavirus ( HPV ) vaccine hesitancy among female university students based on the precaution adoption process model (PAPM), so as to provide the evidence for improving the coverage of HPV vaccine in this population. @*Methods @#HPV vaccine hesitant female students were selected using a cluster sampling method from Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, and randomly assigned to the PAPM group and control group. Students in the PAPM group received PAPM-based interventions for HPV vaccine hesitancy, while students in the control group were given routine interventions. The HPV-related knowledge, HPV vaccine-related knowledge and HPV vaccine hesitancy scores were collected from both groups prior to interventions ( T0 ), 0 ( T1 ), 1 ( T2 ) and 3 months post-interventions ( T3 ), and the effectiveness of interventions was evaluated using analysis of variance for repeated measures.@*Results @#There were 147 students in the PAPM group and 141 students in the control group. In the PAPM group, 36.73% of the students majored in medical sciences, and 48.23% were freshmen; in the control group, 39.72% majored in medical sciences, and 50.35% were freshmen. The mean scores of HPV- and HPV vaccine-related knowledge were significantly greater in the PAPM group than in the control group, respectively ( T1, 5.29 vs. 4.91; T2, 4.27 vs. 4.22; T3, 4.22 vs. 4.04; P<0.05 ); however, no significant differences were detected in the HPV vaccine hesitancy scores between the two groups, respectively ( T1, 2.98 vs. 2.95; T2, 3.07 vs. 3.07; T3, 3.08 vs. 2.97; P>0.05 ). The mean scores of the confidence dimension ( T1, 3.37 vs. 3.23; T2, 3.48 vs. 3.40; T3, 3.38 vs. 3.25 ) and the dimension of influence by others ( T1, 3.44 vs. 3.33; T2, 3.42 vs. 3.37; T3, 3.46 vs. 3.27 ) were significantly greater in the PAPM group than in the control group (P<0.05), while the mean scores of the complacency dimension were significantly lower in the PAPM group than in the control group ( T1, 1.98 vs. 2.03; T2, 2.06 vs. 2.20; T3, 2.18 vs. 2.15; P<0.05 ).@*Conclusions @#PAPM-based interventions for HPV vaccine hesitancy may effectively improve the awareness of HPV and HPV vaccines, reduce complacency, and enhance the influence by others among female university students.