Ingrid Wikström1, Harriet Stenvall, Erik Wilander. 1. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Section for Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Uppsala, Sweden. Ingrid.Wikstrom@kbh.uu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The major problem with the cytological screening is the non-optimal participation rate among women invited for cervical smear collection. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the attitudes of the non-responding women to perform self-sampling of vaginal smear at home as a method to increase the coverage of the screening and to examine the prevalence of high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) among the responding women. METHODS: From the database of the Department of Cytology, University Hospital of Uppsala 198 women, aged 35-55 years, who had not attended the organized gynaecological screening for over 6 years were identified. They were sent a letter of information about the study and one week later a self-sampling device aimed to collect vaginal smear. The vaginal smear of the women responding to the offer of self-sampling was analysed for high-risk HPV using Hybrid Capture 2 method or polymerase chain reaction amplification of HPV DNA. All women in the study also received a questionnaire in order to investigate their attitudes towards self-sampling as an alternative in the organized screening. RESULTS: Of the 198 women 15 women had to be excluded. Fifty-eight per cent of the women responded and collected vaginal smear at home and among them 7% were positive for high-risk HPV. The questionnaire revealed no significant difference of age, country of birth and occupation or marital status, on using self-sampling of vaginal smear at home. The attitudes among responding and non-responding women differed. The responding women who contributed by sampling vaginal smear were more positive to self-sampling of vaginal smear (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Offering self-sampling of vaginal smear in women not attending the organized cytological screening increases the coverage and identifies an additional group of women with an increased risk to develop cervical cancer. The attitude towards self-sampling was mainly positive.
BACKGROUND: The major problem with the cytological screening is the non-optimal participation rate among women invited for cervical smear collection. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the attitudes of the non-responding women to perform self-sampling of vaginal smear at home as a method to increase the coverage of the screening and to examine the prevalence of high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) among the responding women. METHODS: From the database of the Department of Cytology, University Hospital of Uppsala 198 women, aged 35-55 years, who had not attended the organized gynaecological screening for over 6 years were identified. They were sent a letter of information about the study and one week later a self-sampling device aimed to collect vaginal smear. The vaginal smear of the women responding to the offer of self-sampling was analysed for high-risk HPV using Hybrid Capture 2 method or polymerase chain reaction amplification of HPV DNA. All women in the study also received a questionnaire in order to investigate their attitudes towards self-sampling as an alternative in the organized screening. RESULTS: Of the 198 women 15 women had to be excluded. Fifty-eight per cent of the women responded and collected vaginal smear at home and among them 7% were positive for high-risk HPV. The questionnaire revealed no significant difference of age, country of birth and occupation or marital status, on using self-sampling of vaginal smear at home. The attitudes among responding and non-responding women differed. The responding women who contributed by sampling vaginal smear were more positive to self-sampling of vaginal smear (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Offering self-sampling of vaginal smear in women not attending the organized cytological screening increases the coverage and identifies an additional group of women with an increased risk to develop cervical cancer. The attitude towards self-sampling was mainly positive.
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: F Jalili; C O'Conaill; K Templeton; R Lotocki; G Fischer; L Manning; K Cormier; K Decker Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Murat Gök; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof; Lawrence Rozendaal; Johan W M Spruyt; Feja Voorhorst; Jeroen A M Beliën; Milena Babovic; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-11
Authors: Marion Maar; Pamela Wakewich; Brianne Wood; Alberto Severini; Julian Little; Ann N Burchell; Gina Ogilvie; Ingeborg Zehbe Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2014-11-24