Anni Virtanen1, Pekka Nieminen2, Meri Niironen3, Tapio Luostarinen4, Ahti Anttila3. 1. Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, FI-00130 Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: anni.virtanen@cancer.fi. 2. Helsinki University Central Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jorvi Hospital, PL 800, 00029 HUS, Finland. 3. Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, FI-00130 Helsinki, Finland. 4. Finnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, FI-00130 Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High coverage and attendance is essential to positive cervical cancer screening results. Offering self-sampling for HPV-testing to the non-attendees of the program may improve attendance rates. Information on women's perceptions and experiences with self-sampling (acceptability) is needed to further optimize attendance by this method. METHODS: A questionnaire study focusing on women's experiences on the screening method was embedded in a trial investigating the effects and feasibility of self-sampling among non-attendees of cervical screening in 31 Finnish municipalities in 2011-2012 (n=4688). Reasons for non-attendance in routine screening were also surveyed. RESULTS: Response rate to the questionnaire was 98.8% (909/920) among women who performed self-sampling. Self-sampling participants reported mainly good experiences. Negative experiences (difficulties in sample taking, pain, fear, anxiety, insecurity) were reported rarely, but more commonly among women with a mother tongue other than Finnish or Swedish (immigrants). Most common reason for non-attendance in routine screening was a recent Pap-smear elsewhere (opportunistic screening). Practical reasons (pregnancy, scheduling difficulties) were reported by 42%, emotional or attitudinal reasons by 17%, and 16% forgot to take part. Response yield to questionnaire was unsatisfactory among those women who declined the self-sampling option. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the practical aspects of screening and offering a self-sampling option to non-attendees can help to overcome a large variety of both practical and emotional barriers to traditional screening. More research is needed among the non-attendees to routine screening who decline also the self-sampling option.
OBJECTIVE: High coverage and attendance is essential to positive cervical cancer screening results. Offering self-sampling for HPV-testing to the non-attendees of the program may improve attendance rates. Information on women's perceptions and experiences with self-sampling (acceptability) is needed to further optimize attendance by this method. METHODS: A questionnaire study focusing on women's experiences on the screening method was embedded in a trial investigating the effects and feasibility of self-sampling among non-attendees of cervical screening in 31 Finnish municipalities in 2011-2012 (n=4688). Reasons for non-attendance in routine screening were also surveyed. RESULTS: Response rate to the questionnaire was 98.8% (909/920) among women who performed self-sampling. Self-sampling participants reported mainly good experiences. Negative experiences (difficulties in sample taking, pain, fear, anxiety, insecurity) were reported rarely, but more commonly among women with a mother tongue other than Finnish or Swedish (immigrants). Most common reason for non-attendance in routine screening was a recent Pap-smear elsewhere (opportunistic screening). Practical reasons (pregnancy, scheduling difficulties) were reported by 42%, emotional or attitudinal reasons by 17%, and 16% forgot to take part. Response yield to questionnaire was unsatisfactory among those women who declined the self-sampling option. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the practical aspects of screening and offering a self-sampling option to non-attendees can help to overcome a large variety of both practical and emotional barriers to traditional screening. More research is needed among the non-attendees to routine screening who decline also the self-sampling option.
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: 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: Gabrielle Griffin-Mathieu; Ben Haward; Ovidiu Tatar; Patricia Zhu; Samara Perez; Gilla K Shapiro; Emily McBride; Erika L Thompson; Laurie W Smith; Aisha K Lofters; Ellen M Daley; Juliet R Guichon; Jo Waller; Marc Steben; Kathleen M Decker; Marie-Helene Mayrand; Julia M L Brotherton; Gina S Ogilvie; Gregory D Zimet; Teresa Norris; Zeev Rosberger Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Farhana Sultana; Robyn Mullins; Dallas R English; Julie A Simpson; Kelly T Drennan; Stella Heley; C David Wrede; Julia M L Brotherton; Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 4.430