Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 20.
Published in final edited form as: Vaccine. 2014 Jul 17;32(37):4736–4742. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.07.001

Table 4. Correlates of HPV vaccine series completion among lesbian and bisexual women, n=247.

Bivariate Multivariable
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Demographics
Education
 Less than college ref ref
 Some college 2.36 (1.13-4.93)* 2.29 (0.99-5.28)
 College degree or more 2.44 (1.18-5.05)* 2.43 (1.04-5.69)*
HPV vaccine
Healthcare provider ever recommended
HPV vaccine
 No ref ref
 Yes 2.03 (1.15-3.57)* 1.78 (0.94-3.38)
Health care
Disclosed sexual orientation to
healthcare provider
 No ref ref
 Somewhat 3.39 (1.12-10.25)* 2.92 (0.90-8.92)
 Yes 0.85 (0.47-1.53) 0.74 (0.38-1.47)
Attitudes and beliefs
Perceived harms of HPV vaccinea 0.68 (0.47-0.99)* 1.11 (0.70-1.74)
Perceived barriers to getting HPV vaccineb 0.50 (0.35-0.73)*** 0.66 (0.43-1.01)
Perceived likelihood of HPV-related diseasec 0.42 (0.22-0.81)** 0.46 (0.22-0.96)*
Perceived lower risk of cervical cancer compared to heterosexual womend 0.73 (0.57-0.95)* 0.87 (0.65-1.17)
Anticipated regret if got HPV vaccine and faintede 0.53 (0.38-0.76)*** 0.64 (0.43-0.96)*
Anticipated regret if did not get HPV vaccine and later got HPV infectione 1.83 (1.12-3.01)* 1.31 (0.73-2.33)

Note. Table shows variables associated at p<.05 in bivariate models and, therefore, included in the multivariable model. Other variables examined as potential correlates included: all demographics; age at sexual debut; number of sexual partners in lifetime; HPV knowledge; health insurance; receipt of a recent routine check-up; perceived discrimination; HPV vaccine effectiveness; LGBT community vaccination norms; worry about getting HPV-related disease; and perceived severity of HPV-related disease, none of which were associated at p<.05 in bivariate analyses.

HPV=human papillomavirus; OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval; ref=reference group

a

4 item scale; each item had a 5-point response scale ranging from 1=“strongly disagree” to 5=“strongly agree”

b

2 item scale; each item had a 5-point response scale ranging from 1=“strongly disagree” to 5=“strongly agree”

c

4 item scale; each item had a 4-point response scale ranging from 1=“no chance” to 4=“high chance”

d

5-point response scale ranging from 1=“strongly disagree” to 5=“strongly agree”

e

4-point response scale ranging from 1=“not at all” to 4=“a lot”

*

p<.05;

**

p<.01;

***

p<.001