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.
ABSTRACT
Aims: The aim of the study was to prospectively explore the prognostic factor for gastric cancer with liver metastasis (GCLM), since no prognostic factor was reported to be consistently significant across studies. Patients and Methods: One hundred and five patients with GCLM treated at our center between January 1, 2010, and March 31, 2016, were included and their clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. The univariate analyses were first applied for identify the potential independent prognostic and predictive factors for liver metastasis. These factors were further evaluated with Cox proportional-hazard regression model testing. Finally, survival curves were estimated. Results: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, number of other distant metastases, levels of cancer antigen (CA), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were independent prognostic factors (adjusted relative risk [RR]: 1.362–2.887; P = 0.000–0.027). The survival of patients who received radical gastrectomy would be associated with the ECOG score, staging (T stage and N stage), CA 19-9, and CEA levels (RR: 2.169–3.787; P = 0.000–0.027). Patients with following indicators 1 month postoperatively were prone to liver metastasis after radical gastrectomy (median, 6.9–12.03 months; P = 0.007–0.042): Venous/lymphatic invasion, pathological Stage IV (especially combined with T4 stage), intestinal Lauren type, and combined elevation of CEA and CA 19-9 levels. Conclusions: The therapy design for patients with GCLM should consider the general conditions and personal clinicopathological characters of patients. After balancing the benefit and risk factors, multidisciplinary treatment and individual treatment should be developed based on evidence-based medicine model for each patient