Table 2. Female students characteristics and major source of information for vaccination (in general) by HPV vaccination status, n = 161; Berlin 2010.
| All females n = 161 |
Received HPV vaccine+ n = 96 | No HPV vaccine receipt n = 65 | p-value# | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age [range] |
15,21 (14–18) |
15,82 (14–18) |
15,13 (14–16) |
0.021 |
| High level school vs. low [%] |
(24.855) (65.8) |
63 (65.6) |
43 (66.2) |
0.945 |
| Migration background |
|
|
|
|
| No migration background [%] |
81 (50.3) |
46 (47.9) |
35 (53.8) |
0.306 |
| First generation migrant [%] |
(6.214) (20.5) |
23 (24.0) |
10 (15.4) |
0.186 |
| Second generation migrant [%] |
74.331 (29.2) |
29 (30.2) |
18 (27.7) |
0.730 |
| Documented vaccinations against… (vs. no resp. vaccination) |
|
|
|
|
| Measles [%] |
(36.998) (95.6) |
91 (94.8) |
63 (96.9) |
0.702 |
| Mumps [%] |
(39.2) (95.0) |
91 (94.8) |
62 (98.4) |
1.000 |
| Rubella [%] |
(36.2) (95.0) |
91 (94.8) |
62 (95.4) |
1.000 |
| Tetanus [%] |
(38.384) (98.8) |
94 (97.9) |
65 (100) |
0.516 |
| Source of vaccination informationa (vs. no resp. information) |
|
|
|
|
| Physician [%] |
(30.322) (83.2) |
84 (87.5) |
50 (76.9) |
0.078 |
| Parents [%] |
(25.701) (64.6) |
60 (62.5) |
44 (67.7) |
0.499 |
| School [%] |
(5.933) (18.0) |
18 (18.8) |
11 (16.9) |
0.767 |
| Friends [%] |
(4.644) (14.9) |
15 (15.6) |
9 (13.8) |
0.756 |
| Internet [%] |
(3.563) (13.0) |
15 (15.6) |
6 (9.2) |
0.237 |
| Newspapers and journals [%] |
(0.715) (5.6) |
8 (8.3) |
1 (1.5) |
0.085 |
| Other sources [%] |
(1.085) (5.6) |
7 (7.3) |
2 (3.1) |
0.315 |
| No specific source [%] | (3.879) (6.8) | 4 (4.2) | 7 (10.8) | 0.121 |
Notes: + Participants with at least one documented dose of HPV vaccine; # p-value was calculated: for variable “Age” using Kruskal-Wallis test, for variables school-levels, migration background and sources of Information using Chi-square and for all others using Fisher’s exact test; a Respondents were free to select more than one source, thus column totals are greater than n = 161.