Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
BENCH-PRESS : Original Article
BEYOND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY : Original Article
Brainteaser
BREAST CANCER : Original Article
BREAST CANCERS Original Article
Brief Commentary MEDic LAWgic Section
Brief Report, Public Health
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY: Original Article
CANCER SURGERY : Original Article
Cardio-Oncology
Case Report
Case Series, Haematological
CLINICAL TRIAL : Original Article
COLORECTAL CANCER : Original Article
COMMENTARY
Consensus
Consensus Recommendations, Head Neck
Controversy
Corrigendum
Diagnostic Dilemma
Drug Review
DRUG REVIEW : Review Article
Editorial
Editorial Commentary
Editorial: Memoir
Erratum
ESOPHAGEAL CANCER : Original Article
FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE TRACT TUMORS : Original Article
GCT Review Article
GENITOURINARY : Original Article
GI CANCER Original Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Original Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Review Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCERS : Original Article
HISTOPATHOLOGY IN ONCOLOGY : Original Article
In Response
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor, Breast
Letter to Editor: Oral Carcinoma
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
LEUKEMIA : Original Article
LEUKEMIAS : Original Article
LUNG CANCER: Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN AML : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN HEAD AND NECK CANCERS : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN LUNG CANCER : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN OVARIAN CANCER : Original Article
Mini Commentary
Mini Symposium - FNAC VERSUS CORE BIOPSY: Editorial
Mini Symposium - FNAC VERSUS CORE BIOPSY: Original Article
Mini Symposium - RT DOSIMETRY AND FRACTIONATION: Editorial
Mini Symposium - RT DOSIMETRY AND FRACTIONATION: Original Article
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Brief Article
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Editorial
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Original Article
Mini Symposium on CML
Mini Symposium on Supportive Care: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Editorial
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Review Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MISCELLANEOUS : Original Article
MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY : Original Article
MULTIPLE CANCERS Original Article
MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME : Review Article
MYELOID LEUKEMIA : Original Article
NEURO ONCOLOGY : Review Article
NEURO-ONCOLOGY : Original Article
None
Notice of Retraction
OESOPHAGEAL CANCER : Original Article
Oncology Reflections
Original Article
Original Article : Bone & Soft Tissue Tumors
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Breast Cancer
Original Article : Breast Cancers
Original Article : Gastro-intestinal & Hepatobiliary Cancers
Original Article : Genitourinary & Gynecological Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : GI Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : GI Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Gynaecologic Oncology
Original Article : Head and Neck Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Hematolymphoid
Original Article : Leukemia & Lymphoma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Leukemia and Lymphoma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Melanoma and Skin Cancer
Original Article : Pediatric and Adolescent Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : SAARC Selection
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Supportive Care and Others
Original Article, Breast
Original Article, Gastrointestinal
Original Article, Gynaecological
Original Article, Head Neck
Original Article, Neurological
Original Article, Public Health
Original Article: Bladder Cancer
Original Article: Bone and Soft Tissue Cancers
Original Article: Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors
Original Article: Brain Tumor
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Brain Tumors
Original Article: Cancer Epidemiology and Screening
Original Article: Cancer Epidemiology, Screening and diagnosis
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Diagnostics in Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Epidemiology of Cancer and Cancer Screening
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gastro-intestinal & Hepatobiliary Cancer
Original Article: Gastrointestinal Cancer
Original Article: Genito Urinary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Genitourinary & Gynaecological Cancer
Original Article: Genitourinary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Genitourinary Cancers
Original Article: Geriatric Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: GI Cancers
Original Article: GI Cancers and Hepatobilliary Malignancies
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecologic Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecological Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecological Cancers
Original Article: Gynecological Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Head and Neck Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Hematolymphoid Malignancies
Original Article: Hematolymphoid Malignancy
Original Article: Hepatobiliary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Immuno - Oncology
Original Article: Leukemia -Lymphoma and Myeloma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Leukemia, Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorder
Original Article: Lung Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Lung Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Neuroendocrine Tumors
Original Article: Paediatric Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Palliative Care
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Pediatric Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Sarcomas
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Sarcomas and Skin Cancer
Original Article: Skin Cancer
Original Article: Supportive and Palliative Care
Original Article: Supportive and Palliative Care in Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Supportive Care
Original Research Article
PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY : Original Article
PEDIATRIC SECTION: Editorial
PEDIATRIC SECTION: Original Article
Pictorial CME, Haematological
Poetry in Oncology
Position Paper
QUEST FOR AN ANTIDOTE TO RADIATION TOXICITY : Editorial
QUEST FOR AN ANTIDOTE TO RADIATION TOXICITY : Original Article
RCC Practical Consensus Recommendations
Regional Article
Review Article
Review Article, Breast
Review Article, Haematological
Review Article, International
SARCOMA : Original Article
SARCOMA Review Article
SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA : Original Article
South Asia update
SOUTH ASIAN UPDATE : An update
SOUTH ASIAN UPDATE : Original Article
TABACCO, THE MENACE : Original Article
THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS : Editorial
THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS : Original Article
THE GREAT DEBATE: Against HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: AGAINST IMATINIB AS THE FIRST LINE TKI CHOICE FOR CML
THE GREAT DEBATE: Editorial-HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: For HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: FOR IMATINIB AS THE FIRST LINE TKI CHOICE FOR CML
THE GREY-HAIRED CANCER PATIENT: Editorial
THE GREY-HAIRED CANCER PATIENT: Original Article
THE SKILLFUL SCALPEL: Editorial
THE SKILLFUL SCALPEL: Original Article
THE WAR ON MICROBES: Editorial
THE WAR ON MICROBES: Original Article
THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE : Original Article
THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE: Editorial
TREATMENT TOXICITY : Original Article
TRENDS IN HORMONAL THERAPY IN PROSTATE CANCER: Review Article
URO-ONCOLOGY : Original Article
View Point
Viewpoint
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
BENCH-PRESS : Original Article
BEYOND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY : Original Article
Brainteaser
BREAST CANCER : Original Article
BREAST CANCERS Original Article
Brief Commentary MEDic LAWgic Section
Brief Report, Public Health
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY: Original Article
CANCER SURGERY : Original Article
Cardio-Oncology
Case Report
Case Series, Haematological
CLINICAL TRIAL : Original Article
COLORECTAL CANCER : Original Article
COMMENTARY
Consensus
Consensus Recommendations, Head Neck
Controversy
Corrigendum
Diagnostic Dilemma
Drug Review
DRUG REVIEW : Review Article
Editorial
Editorial Commentary
Editorial: Memoir
Erratum
ESOPHAGEAL CANCER : Original Article
FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE TRACT TUMORS : Original Article
GCT Review Article
GENITOURINARY : Original Article
GI CANCER Original Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Original Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Review Article
HEAD AND NECK CANCERS : Original Article
HISTOPATHOLOGY IN ONCOLOGY : Original Article
In Response
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor, Breast
Letter to Editor: Oral Carcinoma
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
LEUKEMIA : Original Article
LEUKEMIAS : Original Article
LUNG CANCER: Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN AML : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN HEAD AND NECK CANCERS : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN LUNG CANCER : Original Article
METRONOMIC THERAPY IN OVARIAN CANCER : Original Article
Mini Commentary
Mini Symposium - FNAC VERSUS CORE BIOPSY: Editorial
Mini Symposium - FNAC VERSUS CORE BIOPSY: Original Article
Mini Symposium - RT DOSIMETRY AND FRACTIONATION: Editorial
Mini Symposium - RT DOSIMETRY AND FRACTIONATION: Original Article
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Brief Article
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Editorial
Mini Symposium on Changing Landscape: Original Article
Mini Symposium on CML
Mini Symposium on Supportive Care: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Editorial
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK CANCER : Review Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MINI SYMPOSIUM: PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY: Original Article
MISCELLANEOUS : Original Article
MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY : Original Article
MULTIPLE CANCERS Original Article
MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME : Review Article
MYELOID LEUKEMIA : Original Article
NEURO ONCOLOGY : Review Article
NEURO-ONCOLOGY : Original Article
None
Notice of Retraction
OESOPHAGEAL CANCER : Original Article
Oncology Reflections
Original Article
Original Article : Bone & Soft Tissue Tumors
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Breast Cancer
Original Article : Breast Cancers
Original Article : Gastro-intestinal & Hepatobiliary Cancers
Original Article : Genitourinary & Gynecological Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : GI Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : GI Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Gynaecologic Oncology
Original Article : Head and Neck Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Hematolymphoid
Original Article : Leukemia & Lymphoma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Leukemia and Lymphoma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Melanoma and Skin Cancer
Original Article : Pediatric and Adolescent Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : SAARC Selection
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : Supportive Care and Others
Original Article, Breast
Original Article, Gastrointestinal
Original Article, Gynaecological
Original Article, Head Neck
Original Article, Neurological
Original Article, Public Health
Original Article: Bladder Cancer
Original Article: Bone and Soft Tissue Cancers
Original Article: Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors
Original Article: Brain Tumor
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Brain Tumors
Original Article: Cancer Epidemiology and Screening
Original Article: Cancer Epidemiology, Screening and diagnosis
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Diagnostics in Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Epidemiology of Cancer and Cancer Screening
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gastro-intestinal & Hepatobiliary Cancer
Original Article: Gastrointestinal Cancer
Original Article: Genito Urinary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Genitourinary & Gynaecological Cancer
Original Article: Genitourinary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Genitourinary Cancers
Original Article: Geriatric Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: GI Cancers
Original Article: GI Cancers and Hepatobilliary Malignancies
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecologic Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecological Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Gynaecological Cancers
Original Article: Gynecological Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Head and Neck Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Hematolymphoid Malignancies
Original Article: Hematolymphoid Malignancy
Original Article: Hepatobiliary Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Immuno - Oncology
Original Article: Leukemia -Lymphoma and Myeloma
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Leukemia, Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorder
Original Article: Lung Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Lung Cancers
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Neuroendocrine Tumors
Original Article: Paediatric Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Palliative Care
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Pediatric Oncology
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Sarcomas
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Sarcomas and Skin Cancer
Original Article: Skin Cancer
Original Article: Supportive and Palliative Care
Original Article: Supportive and Palliative Care in Cancer
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Supportive Care
Original Research Article
PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY : Original Article
PEDIATRIC SECTION: Editorial
PEDIATRIC SECTION: Original Article
Pictorial CME, Haematological
Poetry in Oncology
Position Paper
QUEST FOR AN ANTIDOTE TO RADIATION TOXICITY : Editorial
QUEST FOR AN ANTIDOTE TO RADIATION TOXICITY : Original Article
RCC Practical Consensus Recommendations
Regional Article
Review Article
Review Article, Breast
Review Article, Haematological
Review Article, International
SARCOMA : Original Article
SARCOMA Review Article
SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA : Original Article
South Asia update
SOUTH ASIAN UPDATE : An update
SOUTH ASIAN UPDATE : Original Article
TABACCO, THE MENACE : Original Article
THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS : Editorial
THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS : Original Article
THE GREAT DEBATE: Against HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: AGAINST IMATINIB AS THE FIRST LINE TKI CHOICE FOR CML
THE GREAT DEBATE: Editorial-HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: For HPV vaccine in cervical cancer
THE GREAT DEBATE: FOR IMATINIB AS THE FIRST LINE TKI CHOICE FOR CML
THE GREY-HAIRED CANCER PATIENT: Editorial
THE GREY-HAIRED CANCER PATIENT: Original Article
THE SKILLFUL SCALPEL: Editorial
THE SKILLFUL SCALPEL: Original Article
THE WAR ON MICROBES: Editorial
THE WAR ON MICROBES: Original Article
THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE : Original Article
THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE: Editorial
TREATMENT TOXICITY : Original Article
TRENDS IN HORMONAL THERAPY IN PROSTATE CANCER: Review Article
URO-ONCOLOGY : Original Article
View Point
Viewpoint
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
Public Health
15 (
1
); 11-18
doi:
10.25259/SAJC_69_2025

Knowledge, attitude, and barriers regarding human papillomavirus vaccination and screening among healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional study

Department of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh, India.
College of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Author image
Corresponding author: Prasuna Jelly, College of Nursing, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh 249203, Uttarakhand, India. prasunajelly@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Sahadevan AR, Jelly P, Sharma R. Knowledge, attitude, and barriers regarding human papillomavirus vaccination and screening among healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional study. South Asian J Cancer. 2026;15:11-8. doi: 10.25259/SAJC_69_2025

Abstract

Objectives:

Cervical cancer remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among women globally. Vaccination and screening are essential strategies to reduce cervical cancer-related deaths. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a vital role in promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical cancer screening. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and perceived barriers related to HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs in a tertiary care centre in Uttarakhand.

Material and Methods:

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 350 healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, and paramedics) from a tertiary care teaching institute of Dehradun district, Uttarakhand. Data was collected using a validated, self-structured, and pretested questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied for data analysis using STATA Software SE 18.

Results:

Among the 350 respondents, only 15.1% demonstrated good knowledge, while more than half exhibited a positive attitude toward HPV vaccination and screening. The most commonly perceived barriers to vaccination included lack of awareness, unavailability of vaccination centres, and fear of adverse effects. For screening, key barriers were a lack of awareness, fear of cancer diagnosis, and discomfort during the procedure. Significant associations were found between knowledge and attitude levels with marital status and education level. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.556, p <0.05) was observed between knowledge and attitude scores.

Conclusion:

The study concluded that while attitudes were generally positive, knowledge regarding HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs was inadequate. Targeted training and awareness programs are essential to equip HCPs with accurate knowledge, thereby improving HPV vaccination and screening rates across the population.

Keywords

Attitudes
Knowledge
Papillomavirus infections
Practice
Healthcare professional

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. According to GLOBOCAN 2020, there were 341,831 (3.4%) new deaths due to cervical cancer globally. Alarmingly, every minute, one woman is diagnosed with this disease. Cervical cancer has a well-defined, prolonged pre-malignant stage, which can be detected early through routine screening and timely follow-up. However, most Indian women remain unaware of these screening options.[1]

In Uttarakhand, limited research has been conducted, despite a notably high incidence of cervical cancer. A study from Nainital and adjoining districts reported that cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in the region, with an average age of diagnosis being 52 years.[2] According to ICMR data, the incidence of cervical cancer in Uttarakhand increased by 2.9%, which is higher than the national average of 2.4%.[3]

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a group of highly prevalent viruses worldwide, primarily transmitted through sexual contact. Cervical cancer is often asymptomatic in its early stages, though some patients may experience foul-smelling vaginal discharge and abnormal bleeding. Risk factors for cervical cancer include high parity, multiple sexual partners, early age at marriage, smoking, low socioeconomic status, poor personal hygiene, and prolonged oestrogen exposure, such as through long-term use of oral contraceptive pills.[2]

HPV vaccination is recommended between the ages of 9 and 12 years and can be given up to 26 years of age. For Gardasil, the recommended schedule is three doses at 0, 2, and 6 months, while for Cervarix, it is 0, 1, and 6 months. If the vaccination schedule is interrupted, the next dose should be administered as soon as possible.[4] The vaccine is administered intramuscularly into the deltoid muscle or the anterolateral thigh in a dose of 0.5 mL. In India, the HPV vaccine is not yet approved for use in males, although efficacy trials in males are currently underway. Regular cervical cancer screening is essential to reduce mortality. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), HPV screening every five years is recommended after 25 years of age.

Screening methods for cervical cancer include the HPV test, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and visual inspection with Lugol’s iodine (VILI).

There are several challenges to HPV vaccination and screening, including a lack of awareness, limited time, and inaccessibility of services. The knowledge and practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding HPV vaccination and screening are crucial, as they significantly influence their likelihood of recommending these preventive measures to others in the future. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude, and perceived barriers related to HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs. The findings of this study can provide valuable insights at the policy level, supporting efforts to strengthen awareness and improve attitudes toward this critical public health issue.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study design

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching institute of Dehradun district, Uttarakhand, from January 2021 to June 2022. The study population included HCPs, including nurses, doctors, and paramedics.

Study population and participants

The study population comprised three professional groups: doctors, nursing officers, and paramedical staff working at a tertiary care teaching institute of Dehradun district, Uttarakhand. Convenience sampling, based on participant availability in each unit, was employed for participant selection. The estimated total population of healthcare professionals at a selected tertiary care teaching institute, at the time of the study, was approximately 1,500, including 1,045 nursing officers, 400 doctors, and 55 paramedical personnel. These estimates were obtained from institutional staffing records and were used for sample size calculation and study planning.

A total of 350 HCPs participated in the study, selected through convenience sampling. The final sample included 29 doctors, 301 nursing officers, and 20 paramedical staff.

The sample size was calculated using Yamane’s formula, with an estimated population of 1,500 healthcare professionals and a 5% margin of error, yielding a required sample size of approximately 316. To account for a 10% non-response rate, the final target sample size was increased to around 350. Participants were selected based on their availability across 16 major wards and units.

Healthcare professionals (doctors, nursing officers, and paramedical staff) employed at a selected institute, aged between 21 and 55 years, and available at the time of data collection, were included in the study. Healthcare professionals who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer or were employed through outsourcing were excluded from the study.

Data collection tools

The questionnaire was developed based on a thorough review of relevant published literature. A panel of seven experts evaluated its content validity prior to the pilot study, and necessary modifications were made based on their recommendations. A pilot study was then conducted with 35 participants to assess the reliability of the tool. The results indicated a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.7, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection. Questionnaires were distributed only to those willing to participate, and confidentiality was ensured by excluding any personal identifiers.

The questionnaire aimed to collect information on the sociodemographic profile, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers related to HPV vaccination and screening. Knowledge was assessed through questions covering causative factors, risk factors, preventive methods, and susceptibility to cervical cancer. Participants were instructed to select a single response (“yes” or “no”) for each of the 20 items. Knowledge scores were categorised as: good (≥16, i.e., ≥80%), fair (12–15), and poor (<12, i.e., <60%). Data were presented as frequencies and percentages.

Attitude was measured using a 5-point Likert scale consisting of 13 statements, with options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The total possible score was 65. Attitude levels were classified as positive (mean score ≥52), neutral (27–51), and negative (≤26). Results were also reported in terms of frequency and percentage.

Barriers to HPV vaccination and screening were assessed using dichotomous (“yes” or “no”) questions designed to identify common obstacles perceived by the participants.

Statistical analyses

Sociodemographic characteristics, awareness, knowledge, attitude, and barriers towards HPV vaccination and screening were assessed by descriptive statistics, including percentages, mean, and standard deviation. The correlation and association between knowledge and attitude towards HPV vaccination and screening among healthcare professionals were determined using inferential statistics, including Pearson correlation and chi-square.

Ethical consideration

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of a tertiary care teaching institute of Dehradun district, Uttarakhand. Informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to enrolment. All the data were confidential and used only for research purposes.

RESULTS

Sociodemographic profile and awareness

Of the 350 HCPs surveyed, 73.7% were under 30 years of age. The study participants included 86% nurses, 8.28% doctors, and 5.71% paramedical staff. 54.6% were single, while the remainder were married. The highest educational qualification reported was PhD (0.6%) as shown in Supplementary Table 1. None of the participants reported a family history of cervical cancer. Additionally, 89.4% had heard of the HPV vaccine as shown in Supplementary Table 2.

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

Knowledge about HPV vaccination and screening among HCPS

Only 15.1% of HCPs demonstrated good knowledge regarding HPV vaccination and screening [Figure 1]. For instance, 36% believed that HPV affects only females, and 61.7% were unaware that HPV can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact. While 60.9% correctly identified that early onset of sexual activity is a risk factor for HPV infection, only 45.7% knew that men can transmit HPV to women [Table 1].

Table 1: Knowledge about HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs (n = 350)
Knowledge about cervical cancer and HPV Correct f (%) Incorrect f(%)
• Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (T) 325 (92.90) 25 (07.10)
• Cervical cancer is more common in females belonging to the age group of 35- 50 years (T) 309 (88.30) 45 (11.70)
• HPV affects only females (F) 126 (36.00) 224 (64.00)
• HPV is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact (T) 134 (38.30) 216 (61.7)
• All women are at risk of developing cervical cancer due to HPV infection (T) 216 (61.70) 134 (38.30)
• The early onset of sexual activity is a risk factor for HPV infection (T) 213 (60.90) 137 (39.10)
• A man cannot transfer the HPV infection to a woman (F) 160 (45.70) 190 (54.30)
Related to HPV vaccination
• HPV vaccination is given 0.5 mL (T) 240 (68.60) 110(31.40)
• HPV vaccination is given intramuscularly (T) 246 (70.30) 104 (29.70)
• There is only one dose of vaccine for the age group 9- 14 years for both genders (F). 84 (24.00) 266 (76.00)
• HPV vaccination is preventable against cervical cancer (T) 298 (85.10) 52 (14.90)
• Males can also be HPV vaccinated against HPV infection (T) 125 (35.70) 225 (64.30)
• A 45-year-old person can take an HPV Vaccination if not received earlier (T) 127 (36.30) 223 (63.70)
• HPV vaccination can be administered safely to a pregnant woman (F) 124 (35.40) 226 (64.60)
Related to HPV screening in women
• Screening tests are available for HPV screening in women (T) 301 (86.00) 49 (14.00)
• HPV screening in women should be performed before 25 years (F) 85 (24.30) 265 (75.7)
• All females must be screened for HPV every year (F) 81 (23.10) 269 (76.90)
• There is a need for HPV screening in women even after HPV vaccination (T) 252 (72.00) 98 (28.00)
• VIA (Visual Inspection using Acetic acid) test is for cervical cancer screening (T) 200 (57.10) 150 (42.90)
• A Pap smear screening test is used for screening and diagnosing cervical cancer (T) 301 (86.00) 49 (14.00)

f represents frequency. T for true statements, F for false statements. HCPs: Healthcare professionals, HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Knowledge level about HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs. HPV: Human papillomavirus, HCP: Healthcare professionals.
Figure 1: Knowledge level about HPV vaccination and screening among HCPs. HPV: Human papillomavirus, HCP: Healthcare professionals.

Attitude of HCPS towards HPV vaccination and screening

More than half of the HCPs, i.e., 62.6%, demonstrated a positive attitude toward HPV vaccination and screening. Additionally, 78% disagreed with the statement that HPV vaccination should be given only to HPV-infected individuals, and 85.5% believed there is a need for increased awareness about HPV vaccination through social media platforms [Table 2].

Table 2: Attitude of HCPs towards HPV vaccination and screening (n = 350)
Statements Frequency (%)
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
HPV vaccination
HPV vaccination should be given only to HPV-infected people 14 (04.00) 15 (04.30) 48 (13.70) 127 (36.30) 146 (41.70)
I would like to be a volunteer advocate for HPV vaccination in my community 116 (33.10) 122 (34.90) 89 (25.40) 06 (01.70) 17 (04.90)
HPV vaccination should be included in the national immunisation schedule 174 (49.70) 104 (29.70) 52 (14.90) 17 (04.90) 03(00.90)
HPV vaccination may do more harm than good.n 11 (03.10) 18 (05.10) 87 (24.90) 141 (40.30) 93 (26.60)
HPV vaccination is having serious side effects.n 04 (01.10) 09 (02.60) 121 (34.60) 134 (38.30) 82 (23.40)
Healthy women do not need HPV vaccination.n 07 (2.00) 11 (3.10) 76 (21.70) 127 (36.30) 129 (36.90)
There is a need for awareness about HPV vaccination on social media 247 (70.60) 52 (14.90) 40 (11.40) 06 (01.70) 05 (01.40)
HPV screening
HPV screening in women helps in decreasing the mortality caused by cervical cancer 219 (62.60) 78 (22.30) 46 (13.10) 04 (01.10) 03 (00.90)
HPV screening among women should be made mandatory 189 (54.00) 98 (28.00) 53 (15.10) 07 (02.00) 03 (00.90)
There is no need for HPV screening for a healthy woman having no symptoms.n 17 (04.90) 09 (02.60) 86 (24.60) 136 (38.90) 102 (29.10)
HPV screening is needed only for women having multiple sexual partners.n 27 (07.70) 26 (7.40) 94 (26.90) 116 (33.10) 87 (24.90)
HPV screening in women should be done every 5 years after 25 years of age 86 (24.60) 90 (25.70) 150 (42.90) 17 (04.90) 07 (02.00)
HPV screening causes no harm to the client 176 (50.30) 78 (22.30) 70 (20.00) 17 (04.90) 09 (02.60)

n represents negative statements; others are positive statements. HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Barriers to HPV vaccination and screening among HCPS

Lack of awareness was the most commonly reported barrier to both HPV vaccination (95.1%) and screening (88%) among HCPs. Additional barriers to vaccination included unavailability of vaccination centres (74.6%) and fear of adverse effects (69.4%). For HPV screening, key barriers reported were fear of a cervical cancer diagnosis (74.6%) and discomfort during the procedure (71.1%) [Table 3].

Table 3: Barriers towards HPV vaccination and screening (n = 350)
Statements Frequency (%)
HPV vaccination
• Lack of awareness about HPV vaccination 333 (95.10)
• Lack of time for going to vaccination centres 207 (59.10)
• Unavailability of HPV vaccination centres 261 (74.60)
• HPV vaccination is so costly 217 (62.00)
• Fear of the adverse effects of the vaccination 243 (69.40)
• Fear of becoming infected with HPV after vaccination 174 (49.70)
• Family disapproval 152 (43.40)
• Fear of experiencing pain during injections 179 (51.10)
• Due to religious beliefs, they do not want to have the vaccine 162 (46.30)
• Embarrassment of getting HPV vaccination 138 (39.40)
HPV Screening
• Lack of awareness about the HPV screening 308 (88.00)
• Fear of diagnosing cervical cancer 261 (74. 60)
• Feels uncomfortable 249 (71.10)
• The public would think badly of a woman tested positive for HPV 233 (66.60)
• Lack of HPV Screening centres 229 (65.40)
• A person feels ashamed of their HPV diagnosis 231 (66.00)
• Scared of HPV Screening 233 (66.60)
• The HPV Screening procedure is time consuming 131 (37.40)
• Lack of time 160 (45.70)
• Fear of the adverse effects of the HPV screening 186 (53.10)

HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Correlation between knowledge and attitude

Pearson’s correlation analysis showed a moderate positive correlation between knowledge and attitude scores (r = 0.556), which was statistically significant (p <0.05).

Association between knowledge and selected demographic variables

No significant association was observed between knowledge levels and age (p = 0.159), gender (p = 0.741), religion (p = 0.248), habitat (p = 0.323), or total years of working experience (p = 0.162). In contrast, knowledge levels showed a statistically significant association with marital status (p = 0.021), level of education (p = 0.008), and designation (p <0.001) [Table 4].

Table 4: Association of knowledge regarding HPV vaccination and screening with selected demographic variables ( n = 350)
Sociodemographic variables f(%)
Poor knowledge (<12) Fair knowledge (≥12-15) Good knowledge (≥16) χ2 value p value
Age
  < 30 years 125(48.40) 99(13.20) 34(38.40) 3.682 0.159ª
  ≥ 30 years 45(48.90) 28(20.70) 19(30.40)
Gender
  Male 69(50.70) 46(15.40) 21(33.80) 0.599 0.741ª
  Female 101(47.20) 81(15.00) 32(37.90)
Religion
  Hindu 162(50.20) 116(35.90) 45(13.90) 7.873 0.248ª
  Muslim 02(28.60) 03(42.90) 02(28.60)
  Christian 03(25.00) 06(50.00) 03(25.00)
  Others 03(37.50) 02(25.00) 03(37.50)
Habitat
  Rural 89(52.40) 59(34.70) 22(12.90) 2.259 0.323ª
  Urban 81(45.00) 68(37.80) 31(17.20)
Marital status
  Single 80(41.90) 77(40.30) 34(17.80) 7.712 0.021a
  Married 90(56.60) 50(31.40) 19(11.90)
Total experience in years
  <1 years 07(41.18) 10(58.82) 0(0.00) 6.545 0.162b
  1- 5 years 137(48.58) 102(36.17) 43(15.25)
  >5 years 26(50.98) 15(29.41) 10(19.61)
Level of education
  Diploma 22(68.80) 08(25.00) 02(06.20) 19.685 0.008b
  Bachelor’s 138(49.50) 103(36.90) 38(13.60)
  Master’s degree 10(27.00) 15(40.50) 12(32.40)
  Postdoctorate 0(0.00) 01(50.00) 01(50.00)
Designation
  Doctor 02(06.90) 13(44.80) 14(48.30) 39.850 <0.01b
  Nurses 153(50.80) 109(36.20) 39(13.00)
  Paramedical 15(75.00) 05(25.00) 0(00.00)

f represents frequency. *p <0.05 is statistically significant a = Chi square test (χ2) b = Fisher exact. HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Association of the attitude towards HPV vaccination and screening with demographic variables

A statistically significant association was observed between attitude levels and marital status (p = 0.020), total working experience (p = 0.013), level of education (p <0.001), and designation (p = 0.001) [Table 5].

Table 5: Association of the attitude towards HPV vaccination and screening with demographic variables (n = 350)
Sociodemographic variables f(%)
Neutral (≥26-51) Positive (≥52) χ2 value p value
Age
  < 30 years 96(37.20) 162(62.80) 0.020 0.887ª
  ≥ 30 years 35(38.00) 57(62.00)
Gender
  Male 55(40.40) 81(59.60) 0.862 0.353ª
  Female 76(35.50) 138(64.50)
Religion
  Hindu 124(38.40) 199(61.60) 4.477 0.214ª
  Muslim 01(14.30) 06(85.70)
  Christian 02(16.70) 10(83.30)
  Others 04(50.00) 04(50.00)
Habitat
  Rural 67(39.40) 103(60.60) 0.555 0.456ª
  Urban 64(35.60) 116(64.40)
Marital status
  Single 61(31.90) 130(68.10) 5.414 0.020ª
  Married 70(44.00) 89(56.00)
Total experience in years
  <1 years 09(52.90) 08(47.10) 8.672 0.013ª
  1-5 years 95(33.70) 187(66.30)
  >5 years 27(52.90) 24(47.10)
Level of education
  Diploma 24(75.00) 08(25.00) 24.882 < 0.01b
  Bachelor’s 99(35.50) 180(64.50)
  Master’s degree 08(21.60) 29(78.40)
  Postdoctorate 0(0.00) 02(100.00)
Designation
  Doctor 04(13.80) 25(86.20) 13.435 0.001ª
  Nurses 114(37.90) 187(62.10)
  Paramedical 13(65.00) 07(35.00)

f represents frequency. *p<0.05 is statistically significant. a= Chi square; b= Fisher exact. HPV: Human papillomavirus.

DISCUSSION

Cervical cancer is the most common cancer among women, yet it is also one of the most preventable. Effective screening is key to addressing cervical cancer.[5] Healthcare professionals play a critical role in disseminating information on cervical cancer prevention to the wider public.

Most HCPs were aware that cervical cancer is caused by HPV, which aligns with findings from previous studies.[6] In contrast, Tran et al.[7] reported that only one-third were aware of this fact. Most HCPs had adequate knowledge of the risk factors for cervical cancer, as reported in various studies.[5,6,8,9] However, studies by Tran et al.[7], Mutyaba et al.[10], Obol et al.[11], and Shah et al.[12] found that only a few healthcare workers (HCWs) had adequate knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors.

Similar to the present study, Dulla et al.[8] And Oche et al.[13] Also reported that the majority of HCPs were aware that cervical cancer can be detected through screening. Likewise, as reported by Anantharaman et al.[5] Most healthcare workers (HCWs) in the current study identified the Pap smear as a screening procedure for HPV detection. However, only a very few female HCPs had undergone screening for HPV themselves, a finding echoed in multiple studies.[7,8,1318]

This low uptake of screening was attributed to various factors, including a lack of adequate awareness, fear of being diagnosed with cervical cancer, and discomfort during the procedure. It is concerning that healthcare professionals, who are responsible for promoting opportunistic screening among women, are themselves reluctant to participate in it.

The majority of HCPs in our study were unaware of the recommended cervical cancer screening intervals, similar to the findings reported by Yaren et al.[9] and Mutyaba et al.[10] Most HCPs in our study were aware that the HPV vaccine can prevent cervical cancer. In contrast, Dulla et al.[8] reported that only one-third of healthcare workers (HCWs) were aware of this preventive measure.

We found that fewer participants in our study had adequate awareness of cervical cancer, HPV, HPV vaccination, and screening, compared to the findings of Dulla et al.[8] and Anyebe et al.[14], who reported good knowledge among healthcare workers. In contrast, Mutyaba et al.[10] reported that health workers had very low knowledge, while Nganwai et al.[6] found moderate knowledge levels. These variations in findings may be attributed to differences in the types of healthcare professionals involved, e.g., nurses[6,14] and doctors[15,16], and the healthcare settings in which the studies were conducted.

Female healthcare providers had better knowledge of cervical cancer, screening, and vaccination compared to their male counterparts, as also reported by Eze et al.[19] This difference may be attributed to women’s greater interest in female-specific health issues. Similar to a study from Tanzania[17], this study found that younger nurses had better knowledge about cervical cancer compared to older nurses. HCPs from urban areas had better knowledge than those from rural areas, which is consistent with the findings of Tran et al.[7] HCPs with less than five years of work experience demonstrated better knowledge than those with more than five years of experience. This may be due to less frequent revision of previously acquired knowledge. Additionally, HCPs holding master’s degrees had better knowledge compared to those with bachelor's or diploma qualifications, possibly due to the additional exposure and learning during higher studies.

It was encouraging to observe that the majority of participants in our study held favourable attitudes toward preventive measures such as HPV vaccination and screening. This contrasts with the findings of Mutyaba et al.[10] and Anyebe et al.[14], where participants demonstrated negative attitudes. However, despite the positive attitude seen in our study, only a few participants had undergone HPV screening. This suggests that while attitude is important, it alone is not sufficient to bring about a change in individual health behaviour.

A variety of factors contribute to modern vaccine hesitancy. In our study, the most common barrier perceived by healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding HPV vaccination was a lack of knowledge. Knowledge gaps among HCPs limit their ability to educate patients effectively. Other major barriers identified included the absence of nearby HPV vaccination centres and concerns about vaccine side effects. HCPs are widely recognised as trusted sources of medical information, and their influence is critical in improving vaccination rates. However, factors such as high vaccine cost, lack of time, and fear of pain were also reported to discourage HCP participation in HPV vaccination. These perceived barriers contribute to low vaccination coverage, missed opportunities, and a lack of professional recommendations. According to Palmer et al.[20] Implementing school-based vaccination requirements can be an effective strategy to increase immunisation uptake.

Similar to the findings of Devarapalli et al.[21] The present study also identified a lack of knowledge as the most common barrier perceived by HCPs regarding HPV screening. This was followed by fear of being diagnosed with cervical cancer. The third most commonly reported barrier was a sense of discomfort during the screening process. Other barriers identified included embarrassment or shyness, lack of time, and lack of family support.

Limitations of the study

The present study was conducted in a single setting; therefore, its generalizability may be limited. Additionally, reporting bias may be present, as knowledge, attitude, and perceived barriers were assessed using a self-reported questionnaire.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

The study revealed that healthcare professionals have very low rates of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination, despite being expected to serve as role models in health service utilisation. To address this, it is essential to consider integrating cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination into routine reproductive health services. Efforts should be made to enhance awareness through targeted health education. Increasing healthcare professionals’ knowledge and awareness about cervical cancer, the importance of HPV vaccination, and regular screening is crucial for improving both practice and advocacy.

Ethical approval:

The study approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, number AIIMS/IEC/21/465, dated 2nd September 2021.

Declaration of patient consent:

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate participants consent.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. , , , , , , et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-49.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , et al. Comparison of visual-based cervical cancer screening tests with Pap smear in a North Indian tertiary centre: A prospective randomised observational study. Indian J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;18:99.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. In state, rise in cancer cases higher than national average. . Hindustan Times. Available from: https://www.hindu-stantimes.com/dehradun/in-state-rise-in-cancer-cases-higher-than-national-average/story-4mxwdCxrK6YYMWyOss3syK.html [Last accessed 2024 Apr 29]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus among females after vaccine introduction-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003-2014. J Infect Dis. 2017;216:594-603.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . A cross-sectional study on knowledge, attitude, and practice on cervical cancer and screening among female health care providers of Chennai Corporation 2013. J Acad Med Sci. 2012;2:124.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices visà-vis cervical cancer among registered nurses at the Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008;9:15-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , . Knowledge, attitude and practice concerning cervical cancer and screening among rural and urban women in six provinces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:3029-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Knowledge about cervical cancer screening and its practice among female health care workers in Southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:365-72.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . Awareness of breast and cervical cancer risk factors and screening behaviours among nurses in rural region of Turkey. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2008;17:278-84.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . Knowledge, attitudes and practices on cervical cancer screening among the medical workers of Mulago Hospital, Uganda. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:13.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of cervical cancer prevention among health workers in rural health centres of Northern Uganda. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:110.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . Awareness and knowledge of cervical cancer and its prevention among the nursing staff of a tertiary health institute in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Ecancermedicalscience. 2012;6:270.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , . Cancer of the cervix and cervical screening: Current knowledge, attitude and practices of female health workers in Sokoto, Nigeria. Int J Med Med Sci. 2013;5:184-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , . Knowledge and practice of cervical cancer screening amongst nurses in Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital Zaria. Res Humanit Soc Sci. 2014;4:33-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , . Knowledge, attitude and practices related to prevention of cancer of the cervix among female health workers in Ibadan. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;23:59-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. , . Knowledge, attitude, and practices of cervical cancer screening in health care providers in a teaching hospital. J Dr NTR Univ Health Sci. 2021;10:33-38.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. , . Knowledge of cervical cancer and screening practices of nurses at a regional hospital in Tanzania. Afr Health Sci. 2011;11:48-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , , et al. Cervical cancer prevention in reproductive health services: Knowledge, attitudes and practices of midwives in Côte d'Ivoire, West Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:165.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , . Perspectives of cervical cancer and screening practices among staff of a teaching hospital in South-South Nigeria. J Cancer Res Pract. 2018;5:67-73.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Prevalence of cervical disease at age 20 after immunisation with bivalent HPV vaccine at age 12-13 in Scotland: Retrospective population study. BMJ. 2019;365:l1161.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , . Barriers affecting uptake of cervical cancer screening in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55:318-26.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections