OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to increase participation in cervical cancer screening of under-screened women living in the Mississippi Delta, a U.S. population at high risk for cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted a door-to-door feasibility study of women living in the Mississippi Delta to increase participation in cervical cancer screening in 2009-10. Women (n=119) aged 26-65 years who had not been screened in last 3 years or more, were not pregnant, and had a cervix were offered a cost-free choice: clinic-based Pap testing or home self-collection with HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: Seventy-seven women (64.7%) chose self-collection with HPV testing, of which sixty-two (80.5%) returned their self-collected specimen. By comparison, 42 women (35.3%) chose Pap testing, of which 17 (40.5%) attended their clinic appointment. Thus there was an almost 4-fold greater participation of under-screened women in self-collection with HPV testing than in free Pap testing (78.4% vs. 21.5%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that offering self-collection will increase participation in cervical cancer screening among under-screened populations living in the Mississippi Delta. Based on these preliminary results, we suggest that self-collection with HPV DNA testing might complement current Pap testing programs to reach under-screened populations of women, such as those living in the Mississippi Delta. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to increase participation in cervical cancer screening of under-screened women living in the Mississippi Delta, a U.S. population at high risk for cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted a door-to-door feasibility study of women living in the Mississippi Delta to increase participation in cervical cancer screening in 2009-10. Women (n=119) aged 26-65 years who had not been screened in last 3 years or more, were not pregnant, and had a cervix were offered a cost-free choice: clinic-based Pap testing or home self-collection with HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: Seventy-seven women (64.7%) chose self-collection with HPV testing, of which sixty-two (80.5%) returned their self-collected specimen. By comparison, 42 women (35.3%) chose Pap testing, of which 17 (40.5%) attended their clinic appointment. Thus there was an almost 4-fold greater participation of under-screened women in self-collection with HPV testing than in free Pap testing (78.4% vs. 21.5%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that offering self-collection will increase participation in cervical cancer screening among under-screened populations living in the Mississippi Delta. Based on these preliminary results, we suggest that self-collection with HPV DNA testing might complement current Pap testing programs to reach under-screened populations of women, such as those living in the Mississippi Delta. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: J. Belinson; Y. Qiao; R. Pretorius; W. Zhang; K. Keaton; P. Elson; C. Fischer; A. Lorincz; D. Zahniser; D. Wilbur; Q. Pan; L. Li; C. Biscotti; A. Dawson; A. Li; L. Wu; Y. Ling; C. P. Ma; X. P. Yang Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.437
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: Suzanne M Garland; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila; Cosette M Wheeler; Gonzalo Perez; Diane M Harper; Sepp Leodolter; Grace W K Tang; Daron G Ferris; Marc Steben; Janine Bryan; Frank J Taddeo; Radha Railkar; Mark T Esser; Heather L Sings; Micki Nelson; John Boslego; Carlos Sattler; Eliav Barr; Laura A Koutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Isabel C Scarinci; Francisco A R Garcia; Erin Kobetz; Edward E Partridge; Heather M Brandt; Maria C Bell; Mark Dignan; Grace X Ma; Jane L Daye; Philip E Castle Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Ana C Rodriguez; Diane Solomon; M Concepcion Bratti; John T Schiller; Paula Gonzalez; Gary Dubin; Carolina Porras; Silvia E Jimenez; Douglas R Lowy Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Philip E Castle; Mark Sadorra; Francisco A R Garcia; Allison P Cullen; Attila T Lorincz; Amy L Mitchell; Denise Whitby; Ronald Chuke; Janet R Kornegay Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tiffany L Carson; Claudia M Hardy; Eva Greene; Pamela L Carter; Glenda James; Edward E Partridge; Monica L Baskin Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-12-15
Authors: Robin C Vanderpool; Maudella G Jones; Lindsay R Stradtman; Jennifer S Smith; Richard A Crosby Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Beth E Meyerson; M Aaron Sayegh; Alissa Davis; Janet N Arno; Gregory D Zimet; Ann M LeMonte; James A Williams; Lynn Barclay; Barbara Van Der Pol Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
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
Authors: Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jane J Kim Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 4.018