PURPOSE: To assess the acceptability of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and to explore whether use of self-collected specimens would increase intention to participate in regular screening among low-income, inner-city, minority women. METHODS: A written survey was administered to 172 women after they underwent gynecological examination and self-collection of a sample for HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: Participants agreed that ease of use (69%), less painful procedure (62%), "could do it myself" (56%), and privacy (52%) were desirable characteristics of the self-sampling procedure they performed. Most of the participants (57%) reported that there was nothing they did not like about self-sampling; however, the majority (68%) preferred the clinician-collected test. Those recruited through a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic were significantly more likely than those recruited at a cancer screening clinic (57% vs. 24%), those with some or more college education were significantly more likely than those with less education (43% vs. 26%), and those who were not Hispanic were significantly more likely than those who were Hispanic (49% vs. 28%) to prefer the self-collected test. Although most women (47%) reported that they would be most likely to attend regular screening if tested by a clinician during a pelvic examination, 21% asserted that self-collection at home would increase their likelihood of participation in screening. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the predominantly Hispanic, low-income, uninsured, and recently screened women in the study preferred clinician-collected HPV tests to self-collected sampling, self-sampling is acceptable to the majority and may increase the likelihood of participation in cervical cancer screening programs.
PURPOSE: To assess the acceptability of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and to explore whether use of self-collected specimens would increase intention to participate in regular screening among low-income, inner-city, minority women. METHODS: A written survey was administered to 172 women after they underwent gynecological examination and self-collection of a sample for HPV DNA testing. RESULTS:Participants agreed that ease of use (69%), less painful procedure (62%), "could do it myself" (56%), and privacy (52%) were desirable characteristics of the self-sampling procedure they performed. Most of the participants (57%) reported that there was nothing they did not like about self-sampling; however, the majority (68%) preferred the clinician-collected test. Those recruited through a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic were significantly more likely than those recruited at a cancer screening clinic (57% vs. 24%), those with some or more college education were significantly more likely than those with less education (43% vs. 26%), and those who were not Hispanic were significantly more likely than those who were Hispanic (49% vs. 28%) to prefer the self-collected test. Although most women (47%) reported that they would be most likely to attend regular screening if tested by a clinician during a pelvic examination, 21% asserted that self-collection at home would increase their likelihood of participation in screening. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the predominantly Hispanic, low-income, uninsured, and recently screened women in the study preferred clinician-collected HPV tests to self-collected sampling, self-sampling is acceptable to the majority and may increase the likelihood of participation in cervical cancer screening programs.
Authors: Kayoll V Galbraith; Melissa B Gilkey; Jennifer S Smith; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer Journal: J Community Health Date: 2014-10
Authors: Richard A Crosby; Michael E Hagensee; Robin Vanderpool; Nia Nelson; Adam Parrish; Tom Collins; Nebraska Jones Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Colin Malone; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana Sm Buist; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Chris Thayer; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel L Winer Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Constance Mao; Shalini L Kulasingam; Hilary K Whitham; Stephen E Hawes; John Lin; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Caitlin B Biddell; Meghan C O'Leary; Stephanie B Wheeler; Lisa P Spees Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Chelsea Anderson; Lindsay Breithaupt; Andrea Des Marais; Charlotte Rastas; Alice Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 3.519