Robin C Vanderpool1, Maudella G Jones2, Lindsay R Stradtman3, Jennifer S Smith4, Richard A Crosby3. 1. Department of Health Behavior, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA. Electronic address: robin@kcr.uky.edu. 2. University of Kentucky Rural Cancer Prevention Center, Hazard, KY, USA. 3. Department of Health Behavior, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Innovative screening methods such as self-testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) may alleviate barriers to cervical cancer screening. The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine whether Appalachian Kentucky women would be amenable to self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for HPV testing. METHODS: Women aged 30-64 who were overdue for guideline-recommended cervical cancer screening were recruited from a primary care clinic in southeastern Kentucky. The women were asked to self-collect a specimen, using a cervico-vaginal brush, based on verbal and printed directions provided by a research nurse. All study participants, regardless of laboratory-confirmed HPV status, received the same counseling on the importance of cervical cancer screening and offered navigation to follow-up Pap testing at the local health department. RESULTS: Thirty-one women were approached and recruited to participate in the study, indicating a 100% acceptance rate of HPV self-testing. Of the 31 women, 26 tested negative for high-risk HPV and five tested positive. All of the women with negative results declined nurse navigation to Pap testing, whereas four of the five women with positive results accepted nurse navigation and received subsequent Pap smear screenings (all results were normal). CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of Appalachian Kentucky women, self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for HPV testing was highly acceptable. This exploratory study provides impetus for larger studies among high-risk, medically underserved women in rural communities. Tailoring alternative cancer screening strategies to meet the complex needs of rural women is likely to lead to reductions in cervical cancer incidence and mortality among this vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVE: Innovative screening methods such as self-testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) may alleviate barriers to cervical cancer screening. The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine whether Appalachian Kentucky women would be amenable to self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for HPV testing. METHODS:Women aged 30-64 who were overdue for guideline-recommended cervical cancer screening were recruited from a primary care clinic in southeastern Kentucky. The women were asked to self-collect a specimen, using a cervico-vaginal brush, based on verbal and printed directions provided by a research nurse. All study participants, regardless of laboratory-confirmed HPV status, received the same counseling on the importance of cervical cancer screening and offered navigation to follow-up Pap testing at the local health department. RESULTS: Thirty-one women were approached and recruited to participate in the study, indicating a 100% acceptance rate of HPV self-testing. Of the 31 women, 26 tested negative for high-risk HPV and five tested positive. All of the women with negative results declined nurse navigation to Pap testing, whereas four of the five women with positive results accepted nurse navigation and received subsequent Pap smear screenings (all results were normal). CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of Appalachian Kentucky women, self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for HPV testing was highly acceptable. This exploratory study provides impetus for larger studies among high-risk, medically underserved women in rural communities. Tailoring alternative cancer screening strategies to meet the complex needs of rural women is likely to lead to reductions in cervical cancer incidence and mortality among this vulnerable population.
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; William F Lawrence; Jason C King; Patricia Mangan; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Bin Yi; Jon F Kerner; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Eugene J Lengerich; Thomas C Tucker; Raymond K Powell; Pat Colsher; Erik Lehman; Ann J Ward; Jennifer C Siedlecki; Stephen W Wyatt Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Martyn Plummer; Rolando Herrero; Silvia Franceschi; Chris J L M Meijer; Peter Snijders; F Xavier Bosch; Silvia de Sanjosé; Nubia Muñoz Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Phyllis A Wingo; Thomas C Tucker; Patricia M Jamison; Howard Martin; Colleen McLaughlin; Rana Bayakly; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Pat Colsher; Robert Indian; Karen Knight; Stacey Neloms; Reda Wilson; Thomas B Richards Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brynne E Presser; Mira L Katz; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah Moore; Mack T Ruffin; Electra D Paskett; Paul L Reiter Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.037
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: Paul L Reiter; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah McDonough; Mack T Ruffin; Martin Steinau; Elizabeth R Unger; Electra D Paskett; Mira L Katz Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.830
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: Kimberly A Kilfoyle; Andrea C Des Marais; Mai Anh Ngo; LaHoma Romocki; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.925
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