Methods: As of June 2013, 148 interviews (women n = 98), 32 semi-structured interviews (women n=20) and 19 focus group discussions which employed body mapping (women n=78) have been conducted in in two field sites (Western Highlands & Eastern Highlands).
Results: The majority of participants had never heard the term ‘cervical cancer’ and did not know what or where the cervix was. Phrases commonly used by participants in Tok Pisin (a PNG lingua franca) to describe cervical cancer do not directly and unanimously refer to cervical cancer. When people described what they believed was cervical cancer they were more likely to be referring to chronic untreated sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or pelvic inflammatory diseases (PID). Most participants’ knew about STI, albeit not specific aetiological agents. Only a few well-educated young women knew where the cervix was and knew that HPV, an STI, caused cervical cancer. Despite the difficulties of language participants’ were unanimously in favour of a vaccine that prevented cancer in PNG women.
Conclusion: The metaphoric nature of Tok Pisin is an obstacle to discussing the biology of cervical cancer; although it can be done. Despite this, there was high acceptability for a vaccine. If a HPV vaccine is introduced, care must be taken to build health literacy using appropriate and accurate Tok Pisin to ensure the differentiation of different illnesses, their aetiology and importantly their treatment and prevention.
Angela Kelly-Hanku replaced V. Fiya
