Farhana Sultana1, Robyn Mullins2, Michael Murphy3, Dallas R English1, Julie A Simpson1, Kelly T Drennan4, Stella Heley4, C David Wrede5, Julia M L Brotherton1, Marion Saville4, Dorota M Gertig1. 1. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Level 3, 207 Bouverie Street, The University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia. 2. Cancer Council Victoria, 615St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. 3. Michael Murphy Research, 5/8A Dickens Street, Elwood, Vic. 3184, Australia. 4. VCS Inc., 265 Faraday Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. 5. Royal Women's Hospital, Locked Bag 300, Corner Flemington Road and Grattan Street, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Background The study evaluated acceptability, invitation letters and the test kit for a trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among never- and under-screened women in Australia. METHODS: Victorian women, 30-69 years, who had never had a Pap test or were overdue for one, participated. Four focus groups including eight to nine participants segmented by age (30-49 and 50-69 years) and screening history (never- and under-screened) were conducted in August 2013. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The response to the concept of HPV self-sampling was positive. Decision-making was largely influenced by the content of a pre-invitation letter. Appealing features of self-sampling were cost (free), convenience (home-based) and anticipated less discomfort (with a swab) than a Pap test. Small kits that fit in mailboxes were preferred over post office parcel collection. The perceived barriers include concerns about test accuracy and lack of confidence that a home-based test would give the same results as a physician administered test. Women wanted information on the timing of receipt of the results and information about the organisation providing the test. CONCLUSION: HPV self-sampling is a possible alternative for Australian women who are reluctant to have a Pap test and may increase the likelihood of participation in cervical cancer screening if women's concerns about it can be addressed. The findings of this study are relevant for researchers, policymakers and practitioners implementing self-sampling for under-screened women as part of cervical screening programs.
UNLABELLED: Background The study evaluated acceptability, invitation letters and the test kit for a trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among never- and under-screened women in Australia. METHODS: Victorian women, 30-69 years, who had never had a Pap test or were overdue for one, participated. Four focus groups including eight to nine participants segmented by age (30-49 and 50-69 years) and screening history (never- and under-screened) were conducted in August 2013. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The response to the concept of HPV self-sampling was positive. Decision-making was largely influenced by the content of a pre-invitation letter. Appealing features of self-sampling were cost (free), convenience (home-based) and anticipated less discomfort (with a swab) than a Pap test. Small kits that fit in mailboxes were preferred over post office parcel collection. The perceived barriers include concerns about test accuracy and lack of confidence that a home-based test would give the same results as a physician administered test. Women wanted information on the timing of receipt of the results and information about the organisation providing the test. CONCLUSION:HPV self-sampling is a possible alternative for Australian women who are reluctant to have a Pap test and may increase the likelihood of participation in cervical cancer screening if women's concerns about it can be addressed. The findings of this study are relevant for researchers, policymakers and practitioners implementing self-sampling for under-screened women as part of cervical screening programs.
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Hongyuan Gao; Susan Brandzel; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Natalia Serrano Doratioto Faria Braz; Noely Paula Cristina Lorenzi; Isabel Cristina Esposito Sorpreso; Lana Maria de Aguiar; Edmund Chada Baracat; José Maria Soares-Júnior Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Caroline Lefeuvre; Hélène De Pauw; Anne-Sophie Le Duc Banaszuk; Adeline Pivert; Alexandra Ducancelle; Franck Rexand-Galais; Marc Arbyn Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.380
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
Authors: Hawa Camara; Ye Zhang; Lise Lafferty; Andrew J Vallely; Rebecca Guy; Angela Kelly-Hanku Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rakiya Saidu; Louise Kuhn; Ana Tergas; Rosalind Boa; Jennifer Moodley; Cecilia Svanholm-Barrie; David Persing; Scott Campbell; Wei-Yann Tsai; Thomas C Wright; Lynette Denny Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.842