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

Smith, Megan A.; Liu, Bette; McIntyre, Peter; Menzies, Robert; Dey, Aditi; Canfell, Karen

doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1347-z

Table 2 Admission rates and estimated post-vaccination program reductions, by sex, age, socioeconomic status and area of residence

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

Group		Admission rate per 100,000^a		Overall reduction July 2006-June 2007 to July 2010-June 2011 % (95% CI)	Interaction term P value^b
Group		July 2006-June 2007	July 2010-June 2011		Interaction term P value^b
Females 10–19 years
National^c	More disadvantaged	42.16	6.03	86.7 (82.2, 90.0)
National^c	Less disadvantaged	26.75	3.96	85.0 (79.7, 88.9)	0.57
Major cities^d	More disadvantaged	31.13	3.62	88.6 (82.2, 92.7)
Major cities^d	Less disadvantaged	23.73	3.16	87.9 (82.6, 91.6)	0.83
Other areas^d	More disadvantaged	56.47	7.05	88.8 (83.7, 92.3)
Other areas^d	Less disadvantaged	42.11	5.36	85.8 (73.5, 92.4)	0.52
Females 20–29 years
National	More disadvantaged	73.93	26.39	66.0 (57.7, 72.6)
National	Less disadvantaged	61.87	23.82	61.6 (52.9, 68.7)	0.61
Major cities^d	More disadvantaged	57.05	16.62	64.0 (57.0, 69.9)
Major cities^d	Less disadvantaged	60.81	23.35	63.8 (52.9, 72.1)	0.09
Other areas^d	More disadvantaged	105.01	34.28	71.1 (58.8, 79.7)
Other areas^d	Less disadvantaged	70.29	20.34	67.6 (48.2, 79.8)	0.71
Females 30–39 years
National	More disadvantaged	27.72	28.67	1.7 ( −20.4, 19.7)
National	Less disadvantaged	22.50	23.72	−9.4 ( −30.9, 8.5)	0.44
Major cities^d	More disadvantaged	25.50	22.04	14.1 (−13.9, 35.1)
Major cities^d	Less disadvantaged	23.11	21.80	1.8 (−19.4, 19.2)	0.45
Other areas^d	More disadvantaged	31.18	29.25	17.2 (−13.5, 39.6)
Other areas^d	Less disadvantaged	18.52	21.02	−5.6 (−77.2, 37.1)	0.43
Males 20–29 years
National	More disadvantaged	25.95	19.17	23.0 (4.8, 37.8)
National	Less disadvantaged	36.69	20.28	39.4 (28.9, 48.3)	0.08
Major cities^d	More disadvantaged	20.27	17.47	16.5 (−11.1, 37.3)
Major cities^d	Less disadvantaged	37.81	18.96	43.7 (33.0, 52.6)	0.02
Other areas^d	More disadvantaged	36.28	18.61	42.6 (19.4, 59.1)
Other areas^d	Less disadvantaged	28.23	24.38	23.5 (−19.5, 51.0)	0.32
Males 30–39 years
National	More disadvantaged	16.63	16.44	7.5 (−19.8, 28.5)
National	Less disadvantaged	24.44	18.56	26.0 (10.1, 39.1)	0.18
Major cities^d	More disadvantaged	16.94	15.75	6.4 (−30.9, 33.1)
Major cities^d	Less disadvantaged	25.32	18.84	29.0 (12.7, 42.3)	0.17
Other areas^d	More disadvantaged	16.14	14.22	32.2 (−5.0, 56.2)
Other areas^d	Less disadvantaged	18.76	15.75	13.0 (−61.8, 53.3)	0.52

Significant reductions between July 2006–June 2007 and July 2010-June 2011 in bold. ^aAdmission rate per 100,000 individuals in the population ^bP value for whether the effect of time on admission rates (if any) differed by SES (ie P value for model interaction term) ^cSES: socioeconomic status, based on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage of the admitted individual’s area of residence [7, 8] ^d Remoteness of admitted individual’s area of residence, based on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification [10]

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcinfectiousdiseases@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Infectious Diseases

Contact us