BACKGROUND: Attendance in screening is an important determinant of cervical cancer. Previous experience on high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing on patient-obtained samples suggests a good effect among nonattendees of screening. We assessed the effects of self-sampling on attendance in the Finnish screening program. METHODS:Nonattendees after the primary invitation in one municipality (Espoo) were randomized to receive either a self-sampling kit (2,397 women) or an extra invitation (6,302 women). One fourth (1,315 women) of reminder letter arm nonattendees also received a self-sampling kit as a third intervention. Main outcomes were increases in screening attendance and coverage. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk for participation by self-sampling as a second intervention in comparison to a reminder letter arm was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13-1.30). Total attendance increased from 65% to 76% by self-sampling and from 65% to 74% with a reminder letter. Combining the interventions (reminder letter and then self-sampling) increased total attendance from 63% to 78%. One fifth of the participants in all three groups increased screening coverage (previous Pap smear ≥5 years ago or never). Self-obtained samples were more often HPV positive than provider-obtained ones (participants after primary invitation and reminder letter), 12% to 13% versus 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling is a feasible option in enhancing the attendance at organized screening, particularly as an addition to a reminder letter. IMPACT: If self-sampling is used as a third intervention after two written invitations, the overall attendance in Finland could most likely reach the desired 80% to 85%.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Attendance in screening is an important determinant of cervical cancer. Previous experience on high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing on patient-obtained samples suggests a good effect among nonattendees of screening. We assessed the effects of self-sampling on attendance in the Finnish screening program. METHODS: Nonattendees after the primary invitation in one municipality (Espoo) were randomized to receive either a self-sampling kit (2,397 women) or an extra invitation (6,302 women). One fourth (1,315 women) of reminder letter arm nonattendees also received a self-sampling kit as a third intervention. Main outcomes were increases in screening attendance and coverage. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk for participation by self-sampling as a second intervention in comparison to a reminder letter arm was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.13-1.30). Total attendance increased from 65% to 76% by self-sampling and from 65% to 74% with a reminder letter. Combining the interventions (reminder letter and then self-sampling) increased total attendance from 63% to 78%. One fifth of the participants in all three groups increased screening coverage (previous Pap smear ≥5 years ago or never). Self-obtained samples were more often HPV positive than provider-obtained ones (participants after primary invitation and reminder letter), 12% to 13% versus 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling is a feasible option in enhancing the attendance at organized screening, particularly as an addition to a reminder letter. IMPACT: If self-sampling is used as a third intervention after two written invitations, the overall attendance in Finland could most likely reach the desired 80% to 85%.
Authors: H N Pedersen; L W Smith; C Sarai Racey; D Cook; M Krajden; D van Niekerk; G S Ogilvie Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Andrea C Des Marais; Allison M Deal; Alice R Richman; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Belinda Yen-Lieberman; Lynn Barclay; Jerome Belinson; Allen Rinas; Noel T Brewer Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jane R Montealegre; Patricia D Mullen; Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Maria M Vargas Mendez; Michael E Scheurer Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2015-06
Authors: Cary Suzanne Lea; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Andrea C Des Marais; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 2.226