Fears that vaccination against the virus that causes cervical cancer might encourage girls to become more sexually active are unfounded, suggests a survey of UK teenagers who have received or been offered the vaccine.
Nearly 80 per cent of girls questioned said that being vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) reminded them of the risks of sexual contact. Only 14 per cent agreed that they might take more sexual risks because they had been vaccinated.
Loretta Brabin at the University of Manchester, UK, and her colleagues gave questionnaires to 553 girls offered the Cervarix vaccine in the UK between October 2007 and September 2008. "The vaccine actually made them more aware of the risks of sex," she says.
Six per cent of girls were forbidden from being vaccinated by their parents. Of these, just under half said they wanted to receive the vaccine. "This is the first insight into how a girl decides whether the vaccine is important to her and who influences her decision," says Brabin.
Journal reference: British Journal of Cancer, DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605362
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Compared With What?
Tue Oct 27 21:20:24 GMT 2009 by Ian
http://www.catholiclab.net
So "Nearly 80 per cent of girls questioned said that being vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) reminded them of the risks of sexual contact. Only 14 per cent agreed that they might take more sexual risks because they had been vaccinated."
Okay - compared to what? Where is the baseline in all of this? Does this represent an improved picture of sexual activity in teenage girls or a worse one?
Why not spend the money on this research to investigate the incidence of HPV in girls who practice abstinence and sexual activity with one partner? I haven't seen any figures for this 'cheaper' solution
> Does this represent an improved picture of sexual activity in teenage girls or a worse one?
I'm not sure your question makes sense. The survey was about attitudes rather than sexual activity. You can't compare prior attitudes to a vaccine when it didn't exist.
If anything, it suggests that for some people it will reduce (temporarily, at least) sexual activity because they are reminded of the risks. While a small minority may go the other way.
> I haven't seen any figures for this 'cheaper' solution
Well, you can't have looked very hard. There have been loads of studies on this. Obviously the incidence would be lower in those who abstain from intercourse; it is a sexually transmitted virus.
I just have this sneaking suspicion that telling teenagers to avoid sex because something nasty might happen a long time in the future just isn't going to be as effective as vaccination in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer (kids seem to think they are pretty much immortal).
"I just have this sneaking suspicion that telling teenagers to avoid sex because something nasty might happen a long time in the future just isn't going to be as effective as vaccination in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer (kids seem to think they are pretty much immortal)."
Indeed. Even though there is enough proof that smoking will most likely kill you in the long run, kids are still starting up on the habits today.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
"Why not spend the money on this research to investigate the incidence of HPV in girls who practice abstinence and sexual activity with one partner? "
That would only make sense if there was a reasonable chance of convincing promiscuous teenage girls to put those options into practice.
"eternal love" lasts about a year for teenagers, and then they are likely to switch partners. They are adolescents, still experimenting and learning, you cannot expect them to have an adult, lasting relationship. And why would we insist on adolescents to forgo the joys of sex?
Compared With What?
Wed Oct 28 03:14:20 GMT 2009 by Jeff Popova-Clark
http://www.dataanalytics.com
Tell women to not have sex to avoid HPV? Also maybe people should be stopped from horse riding to decrease the risks of injury, and also mountain climbing, parachuting, deep sea sailing, boxing, bicycling...anything fun which may increase a persons likelihood of injury or sickness. I doubt you agree with these ideas. So I must ask, Catholiclab: Why are you so obsessed with sex?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Even if we were to agree with Ian's supposed solution on religious grounds, transmission is obviously not limited to unmarried - or even unprotected - sex.
It's also an incredibly sexist comment Ian. It's ok for men who are not subject to the potentially deadly consequences of the virus (as far as I know, could be wrong there), but women - including married, religious, monogamous women - shouldn't be exposed to these risks unnecessarily in the name of religion.
Actually, men can get oral, anal and penis cancers from HPV, although they are rare
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
