Table 2. Results of Included Studies .

Author, year country	Demographic characteristics of participants	% of acceptance of test	% of Positive WTP	WTP (US$) M±SD OR median (CR)	WTP as a % of GDP per capita	Other results	InfluencedVariables effects in WTP		Main reason for no WTP (%)
							Significant positive	non-significant
1. Wordsworth S et al, 2001: Scotland (22)	Mean age: 38 Income range of £10 000 ± £25 000.	-	89.3	80.8±51.5	0.49	Zero value=10.7% of participants	➢ Income	➢ Age ➢ Smear status
2. Choi HCW et al, 2013: Hong Kong(23)	83% of mother has more than 35 years	Schoolgirls: 27.1 Mothers 2008: 27.5 Mothers 2012: 37.6	Schoolgirls:54.8 Mothers 2008:44.6 Mothers 2012:66.7	Schoolgirls:38 (13–128) Mothers 2008: 128 (77-192 ) Mothers 2012: 128 (64-192)	Schoolgirls:0.12 Mothers 2008:0.40 Mothers 2012: 0.40	Perceived minimum age appropriate for vaccination (years): Schoolgirls:12 Mothers 2008:15 Mothers 2012:14	Mothers: ➢ Had heard of HPV vaccines before ➢ Monthly household income ≥2564 ➢ Age of daughters: <9 years ➢ Perception on the health of daughters: Good/Very good/Excellent Schoolgirls: ➢ Had heard of HPV before ➢ Risky sexual behaviors ➢ Education attainment ➢ Age: >13	Mothers: ➢ Had heard of HPV before ➢ Identified HPV infection as risk factor ➢ Monthly household income 1282–2564 ➢ Education: Secondary ➢ Education: Tertiary or above ➢ History of cervical screening without symptoms Schoolgirls: ➢ Had heard of HPV vaccines before ➢ Identified HPV infection as risk factor Monthly household income ➢ Self-rated health: Good/Very good/Excellent
3. Rajiah K et al, 2015: Malaysia (18)	mean age: 22.2	83.8	86	108.66	0.97	- Almost all the students wanted the vaccine to be cost free - Almost half of the respondents were willing to spend around USD 200 for their children	-	-	Cost
4. Tarekegn AA, et al, 2019: Ethiopia (24)	mean age: 28 years Average monthly income: US$ 226	-	83.4	7.12±4.83	0.91	34.6% of participants were WTP more than US$11	➢ Age>30years ➢ perceived seriousness of cervical cancer ➢ perceived quality of cervical screening service ➢ educational status ➢ monthly income	➢ Marital status ➢ Religion ➢ Ethnicity ➢ Background profession ➢ Knowledge ➢ Health Status ➢ Source of more Information
5. Tarekegn AA and Yismaw AE, 2019: Ethiopia (25)	mean age: 28 years Average monthly income: US $ 226	-	85.9	8.46±4.83	1.09	36.6% of participants were WTP more than US$11	➢ Age ➢ educational status ➢ Knowledge about cervical cancer and its risk factors ➢ monthly income	➢ Marital status ➢ Background profession ➢ Knowledge ➢ Health status ➢ Perceived seriousness cervical cancer
6. Philips Z,et al, 2003: UK (17)	mean age: 18.9 years about 80% received annual incomes of less than £5000 per annum,	-	-	35.92± 32.01	0.12	WTP for 10% increase in screening accuracy: US$22.16	➢ WTP for routine smear test (£) ➢ Proportion of smears testing normal ➢ Perceived above average risk of cervical cancer	➢ Accuracy of smear test ➢ Age where most abnormal results occur ➢ Current smoker
7. Hoque ME et al, 2013: South Africa (26)	mean age: 20.3 years 63% of the students were sexually Experienced.	77.3	-	-	-	-	➢ Age more than 21 ➢ knew about the Pap smear test ➢ were aware that having multiple sex partners ➢ sexual intercourse before the age of 18 years ➢ smoking ➢ having contracted any STDs	-
8. Maharajan MK et al, 2015: Malaysia (27)	mean age: 23.5 years 56.2% reported as being in a relationship	89.7	87.75	152.48	1.34	30% affirmed that they could not afford the total cost of the three doses of HPV vaccine	-	-	cost
9. Kruiroongroj S et al, 2014: Thailand (28)	mean age: 43.47years Monthly household income: about 33% in 3.300 to 10000 US$	Bivalent: 76.9 Quadrivalent: 74.4	Bivalent: 68.9 Quadrivalent: 67.3	Bivalent: 24.5 (16.3-32.7 ) Quadrivalent: 32.7 (16.3-49)	Bivalent 0.40 Quadrivalent: 0.53	Participants would pay more for quadrivalent vaccine as compared to bivalent vaccine.	➢ -	➢ -	financial limitations (39-43)
10. Songthap A et al, 2012: Thailand (29)	Students mean age: 13.1 Parents: mean age: 43.2 mean monthly income of USD 1,116.40 Teachers mean age: 46.1 mean monthly income was USD 1,787.50	Students:26.1 Parents:44.8 Teachers:43	-	Students: <14.2: 12.9% 14.3-57.1: 56.1% 57.2-114.3: 31% Parents: <14.2: 16.9% 14.3-57.1: 71.1% 57.2-114.3: 12% Teachers: <14.2: 27.3% 14.3-57.1: 59.1% 57.2-114.3: 13.6%	-	-	➢ -	➢ -	-
11. Alder S et al, 2015: Argentina (30)	median age:37	90.1	59.8	30.28 (0.91-165.8)	0.23	About 12% were willing to vaccinate their daughter regardless of the cost	➢ having a high school education or more ➢ gainful employment ➢ a disposable household income of 438-1,050 euro/month ➢ being aware of cervical cancer prior to the study	➢ Age ➢ Marital status ➢ No. of children ➢ Heard of HPV prior to study ➢ Heard of condyloma (genital warts) prior to study ➢ Believes vaccination in general to be an effective ➢ way to prevent disease ➢ Believes vaccination in general to be a safe method to prevent disease ➢ Believes daughter to have had boyfriend ➢ Believes daughter is sexually active ➢ Concerned daughter will have more sexual partners	-
12. Dinh Thu H et al, 2018: Vietnam (31)	About 70% has 36--49 years	-	53.1	34.5 (23-46)	1.47	65.6% viewed the cost as Expensive or Very Expensive	➢ perceived the cost as acceptable ➢ better knowledge on HPV ➢ Not being a farmer ➢ Previously screened for cervical cancer	➢ Age ➢ Not Kinh people ➢ Urban commune ➢ Higher education ➢ Having 1--2 children ➢ Poor household ➢ Positive attitude ➢ always use condom	➢ No information on HPV/ HPV vaccine (60-67%) ➢ living far from health facilities ➢ (12.6-13.8%), ➢ High cost (9.2-19.7%) ➢ Not Considering vaccination as important (4%) ➢ Afraid that the vaccine was unsafe (4%).
13. Umeh IB et al, 2016: Nigeria (16)	About 75% has 31--50 years. 57.6 %: household monthly income less than <US$ 251	92.5	91.6	11.6	0.43	most frequently stated amount was US$ 5.02	➢ mothers living in an rural ➢ previously diagnosed of HPV infection	➢ -	➢ -
14. Philips Z et al, 2006: UK (32)	About 53% has more than 40 years.	-	79.8	282.32	0.63	About 25% WTP more than US$344	➢ -	➢ -	➢ -
15. Yan Yuen WW et al, 2018: Hong Kong (33)	-	girls: 84.9 Parents: 87.1	-	64.5% of participants: 125	0.29	About 8% WTP more than US$125	Parents: ➢ heard of the HPV vaccine ➢ Having correct knowledge of CC ➢ knowledge that the HPV vaccine does not affect growth ➢ perception that the vaccine could protect their daughter ➢ doctor recommended the vaccine ➢ not had a regular family doctor ➢ preference for their daughter to receive the vaccine at school		➢ fear of side effects (52) ➢ not think the vaccine was effective (46) ➢ perception of promiscuity (2)
16. Liao CH et al, 2009: Taiwan (34)	-	-	-	US$1098 to US$1233 (US$913–1004)	6.06 to 6.81 (5.04-5.54)	VSL was estimated at approximately US$0.65 to US$4.09 (US$0.56– 3.16) million	-	➢ -	➢ -
17. Raab SS et al, 2002:USA (35)	Mean age:39 About 33% has more than 50.000 $ annual household income	-	-	reduced the risk of dying of CC from 1 in 37,000 to 1 in 50,000: 237	0.65	No statistically significant differences were seen in the mean WTP at different new Pap test performance Levels.	➢ more than 2 children ➢ Highest education level ➢ Marital status ➢ Age ➢ Perception of high risk for cervical cancer	➢	➢
18. Touch S and Oh JK, 2018: Cambodia (40)	60% has more than 40 years. About 44% has Low (US$ 0–124) family income (monthly)	62	35.6	20.5 ± 8.1	1.61	62 % Willingness to vaccinate their daughter against HPV	➢ younger age ➢ married ➢ heard about CC ➢ believe CC is preventable	➢ high Education ➢ family income ➢ Number of Children	➢ High cost (32.7) ➢ Lack of knowledge (25) ➢ Don’t know where to get HPV vaccine (4.5) ➢ Don’t trust vaccine safety (5.2) ➢ No risk as not exposed to sexual contact (3.5)
19. Opoku CA et al, 2016: Ghana (41)	mean age: 28 27% were in a polygamous relationship	97	76	-	-	-	➢ -	➢ -	➢ -
20. Lin Y et al, 2020:China(42)	majority of the respondents were age 31–35 years annual household income of about 7-17	58.5	2vHPV (81.2)4vHPV (75.9) 9vHPV (67.7) Mean:74.9	-	-	-	➢ Household income ➢ mass media exposure to HPV vaccination ➢ perceived self-efficacy in HPV vaccination ➢ spouse/partner approval ➢ Single mothers and mothers who were divorced, separated or widowed	➢ Age ➢ Ethnicity ➢ Place of birth ➢ Highest education level ➢ Occupation type ➢ Experience with cervical cancer ➢ HPV knowledge ➢ Health belief model ➢ Perceived severity ➢ Perceived benefit ➢ Perceived barriers	-
21. You D et al,2020: China(43)	majority of the respondents were age 19-22	53.5	-	-	-	-	➢ Age group ➢ Birthplace ➢ Location of school ➢ Central China ➢ Year of study ➢ Maternal educational level ➢ Paternal educational level ➢ Monthly disposable fund ➢ Perceived family economic status ➢ Sexual risk profile ➢ HPV knowledge ➢ Attitudes ➢ Perceived benefit ➢ Perceived barriers	➢ Ethnicity ➢ Study program ➢ Perceived severity	➢
22. Lin W et al, 2020: China(44)	mean age was 37.09 years The majority of them were married (90.6%)	63.3	30	-	-	Local residents had a relatively higher awareness of HPV and its vaccine, as well as a higher willingness to receive HPV vaccination than non-permanent residents and floating population.	➢ younger ages ➢ being local residents ➢ higher levels of education ➢ being married ➢ high monthly income ➢ having daughter(s) ➢ heard of HPV ➢ heard of HPV vaccine	➢ Race ➢ Medical insurance ➢ Age at menarche ➢ Age at sex debut ➢ No. of the sexual partners in the past 6 month	➢ -
23. Kristina S et al, 2020: Indonesia(45)	majority of the respondent (31.5%) had 46 and more age year	-	67.1	3.94±1.64	0.1	-	➢ Age ➢ Monthly income ➢ Family history of cancer ➢ Private insurance status ➢ Knowledge ➢ Perception on cancer risk	➢ Education ➢ Marital status ➢ Perceived health status ➢ Perceived quality of service ➢ Source of information ➢ Experience in Pap smear test
24. Weng Q et al, 2020: Tanzania (21)	the mean age was 32.86 years	87.9	57.4	-	-	Only 4.38% of the respondents had previously received CC screening	➢ Age ➢ Marital States ➢ Parity ➢ Education level ➢ Family Income ➢ Disease History ➢ Family Cancer History	➢ Ethnicity ➢ First Sex Age ➢ Genetic Disease	➢
25. Dahlström LA et al,2010: Sweden (36)	mean age:44 about 70% of the participants lived in rural	76	63	-	-	-	➢ Female gender of child ➢ believes vaccines are safe ➢ Believes vaccines are efficient ➢ Age ➢ Education ➢ Employment ➢ family income ➢ martial situation ➢ has 2 Number of children ➢ living in rural ➢ Have heard about HPV ➢ Worried child will have more partners ➢ Believes child has had girlfriend/boy friend	➢ Gender of parent ➢ Believes child has had coition	-
26. Oh JK et al, 2010: Korea (37)	About 56% has more than 40 years. About 56% has middle (2000–4000 USD) income per month	men and women:55 participants’ daughters:77	-	-	-	35.5% of men and 39.1% of women suggested under US$ 50	➢ Aged under than 50 years ➢ education ➢ income	➢ Sex ➢ Living in a small town	-
27. Rajiah K et al, 2017: Malaysia (38)	66.2% of students were female 78.9% of The respondents were in a relationship.	-	-	397.6	3.56	Students were WTP US$ 450.6vaccinate their children in the future	➢ More knowledge towards CC	➢ attitudes towards vaccines	➢ -
28. Tran BX et al, 2018: Vietnam(39)	mean age was 26.8 average monthly household income was US$ 667	-	86.6	49.3 (44.4—54.3)	2.27	Male WTP is more than Female	➢ Age 20–29 years ➢ High household income ➢ education ➢ Has children >6 years old ➢ Adult male ➢ Believes that HPV vaccine is effective ➢ Has ever examined reproductive health ➢ informed about HPV by except doctors, nurses, or other health professionals	➢ Has family member who ever had sexually transmitted infection	➢ being male (33.3), high cost (38.2), the vaccine being seen as unnecessary (34.5)