[Do media reports and public brochures facilitate informed decision making about cervical cancer prevention?]

With the introduction and recommendation of the new HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccination in 2007, cervical cancer prevention has evoked large public interest. Is the public able to make informed decisions on the basis of media reports and brochures? To answer this question, an analysis of media coverage of HPV vaccination (Gardasil®) and Pap (Papanicolaou) screening was conducted from 2007-2009, which investigated the minimum requirement of completeness (pros and cons), transparency (absolute numbers), and correctness (references concerning outcome, uncertainty, magnitude) of the information. As a bench mark, facts boxes with concise data on epidemiology, etiology, benefits, harms, and costs were compiled in advance. Although all vaccination reports and brochures covered the impact of prevention, only 41% provided concrete numbers on effectiveness (90/220) and 2% on absolute risk reductions for the cancer surrogate dysplasia (5/220), whereby none of the latter numbers was correct. The prevention potential was correctly presented once. Only 48% (105/220) mentioned pros and cons. With regard to screening, 20% (4/20) provided explicit data on test quality and one expressed these in absolute numbers, while 25% (5/20) reported the prevention potential; all given numbers were correct. Finally, 25% (5/20) mentioned the possibility of false positive results. Minimum requirements were fulfilled by 1/220 vaccination and 1/20 screening reports. At present, informed decision making based on media coverage is hardly possible.