Skip to main content

Table 1 Admissions involving a diagnosis of genital warts by sex, age, socioeconomic status and area of residence, July 2004–June 2011

From: Trends in genital warts by socioeconomic status after the introduction of the national HPV vaccination program in Australia: analysis of national hospital data

  More disadvantageda Less disadvantageda
Females   
10–19 years 947 746
 (excl. screening follow-upb) 784 573
20–29 years 2,061 2,610
 (excl screening follow-upb) 1,594 1,955
30–39 years 1,034 1,308
 (excl screening follow-upb) 834 1,020
Males   
10–19 years 118 144
20–29 years 956 1,636
 (anal site involvedc) 429 798
 (anal site NOT involvedc) 436 645
30–39 years 654 1,146
  Major citiesd Other areasd
  More disadvantaged Less disadvantaged More disadvantaged Less disadvantaged
Females     
10–19 years 349 563 598 183
20–29 years 984 2,171 1,077 439
30–39 years 561 1,123 473 185
Males     
20–29 years 506 1,402 450 234
 (anal site involvedc) 257 699 172 99
 (anal site NOT involvedc) 196 532 240 113
30–39 years 376 1,004 278 142
  1. aBased on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage of the admitted individual’s area of residence [7, 8]. bAdmissions involving a procedure related to follow-up of cervical screening were excluded from this sub-analysis (see Additional file1: Table S1) cAdmissions were stratified according to whether the admission involved a diagnosis or treatment procedure code associated with anal warts, or whether only non-anal sites were recorded (Additional file1: Table S1); admissions where the warts site could not be ascertained were excluded from this sub-analysis dBased on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) remoteness area of the admitted individual’s area of residence [10]. “Other areas” includes the ASGC categories Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. In cases where the NHMD did not record remoteness area (RA) for an admission, this was assigned based on a standard Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) mapping for the admitted individual’s SLA [9]. In cases where that SLA contained locations with different levels of remoteness, the admission was assigned according to the standard ABS weighting for each remoteness area within the SLA [9]