Literature DB >> 25617202

Effect of self-collection of HPV DNA offered by community health workers at home visits on uptake of screening for cervical cancer (the EMA study): a population-based cluster-randomised trial.

Silvina Arrossi1, Laura Thouyaret2, Rolando Herrero3, Alicia Campanera4, Adriana Magdaleno4, Milca Cuberli2, Paula Barletta2, Rosa Laudi5, Liliana Orellana2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Control of cervical cancer in developing countries has been hampered by a failure to achieve high screening uptake. HPV DNA self-collection could increase screening coverage, but implementation of this technology is difficult in countries of middle and low income. We investigated whether offering HPV DNA self-collection during routine home visits by community health workers could increase cervical screening.
METHODS: We did a population-based cluster-randomised trial in the province of Jujuy, Argentina, between July 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012. Community health workers were eligible for the study if they scored highly on a performance score, and women aged 30 years or older were eligible for enrolment by the community health worker. 200 community health workers were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (offered women the chance to self-collect a sample for cervical screening during a home visit) or the control group (advised women to attend a health clinic for cervical screening). The primary outcome was screening uptake, measured as the proportion of women having any HPV screening test within 6 months of the community health worker visit. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02095561.
FINDINGS: 100 community health workers were randomly allocated to the intervention group and 100 were assigned to the control group; nine did not take part. 191 participating community health workers (94 in the intervention group and 97 in the control group) initially contacted 7650 women; of 3632 women contacted by community health workers in the intervention group, 3049 agreed to participate; of 4018 women contacted by community health workers in the control group, 2964 agreed to participate. 2618 (86%) of 3049 women in the intervention group had any HPV test within 6 months of the community health worker visit, compared with 599 (20%) of 2964 in the control group (risk ratio 4·02, 95% CI 3·44-4·71).
INTERPRETATION: Offering self-collection of samples for HPV testing by community health workers during home visits resulted in a four-fold increase in screening uptake, showing that this strategy is effective to improve cervical screening coverage. This intervention reduces women's barriers to screening and results in a substantial and rapid increase in coverage. Our findings suggest that HPV testing could be extended throughout Argentina and in other countries to increase cervical screening coverage. FUNDING: Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (Argentina).
Copyright © 2015 Arrossi et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC-ND. Published by .. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25617202     DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70354-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Glob Health        ISSN: 2214-109X            Impact factor:   26.763


  78 in total

1.  HPV self-sampling acceptability and preferences among women living with HIV in Botswana.

Authors:  Racquel E Kohler; Tamara Elliott; Barati Monare; Neo Moshashane; Kehumile Ramontshonyana; Pritha Chatterjee; Doreen Ramogola-Masire; Chelsea Morroni
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 3.561

2.  Vaginal Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Infection as a Primary Cervical Cancer Screening Tool in a Haitian Population.

Authors:  Joel C Boggan; David K Walmer; Gregory Henderson; Nahida Chakhtoura; Schatzi H McCarthy; Harry J Beauvais; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.830

3.  HPV Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Ethnic Minority Women in South Florida: a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Olveen Carrasquillo; Julia Seay; Anthony Amofah; Larry Pierre; Yisel Alonzo; Shelia McCann; Martha Gonzalez; Dinah Trevil; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Erin Kobetz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Cervical Cancer Screening with Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among Transgender Men in El Salvador.

Authors:  Mauricio Maza; Mario Meléndez; Alejandra Herrera; Xavier Hernández; Bryan Rodríguez; Montserrat Soler; Karla Alfaro; Rachel Masch; Gabriel Conzuelo-Rodríguez; Juno Obedin-Maliver; Miriam Cremer
Journal:  LGBT Health       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.151

5.  Cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: A cost-effectiveness framework for valuing tradeoffs between test performance and program coverage.

Authors:  Nicole G Campos; Philip E Castle; Thomas C Wright; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Clinician and Patient Acceptability of Self-Collected Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening.

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

7.  Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Ruanne V Barnabas; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Participation in Cervical Screening by Self-collection, Pap, or a Choice of Either in Brazil.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Vânia R S Silva; Marcia E L Consolaro; Nádia Kienen; Lorna Bittencourt; Sandra M Pelloso; Edward E Partridge; Amanda Pierz; Camila B Dartibale; Nelson S Uchimura; Isabel C Scarinci
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-01-16

9.  Assessment of a New Lower-Cost Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus: Useful for Cervical Screening in Limited-Resource Settings?

Authors:  Joel Fokom Domgue; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas H Wentzensen; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Brian Befano; Yi Xie; Lais S Miachon; Michael Dean
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Inefficiencies of over-screening and under-screening for cervical cancer prevention in the U.S.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.