F Verdoodt1, M Jentschke2, P Hillemanns2, C S Racey3, P J F Snijders4, M Arbyn5. 1. Belgian Cancer Centre/Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, J. Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str, 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. 3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street , 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T3M7, Canada. 4. Department of Pathology, VU University medical center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Belgian Cancer Centre/Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, J. Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: Marc.arbyn@wiv-isp.be.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Population coverage for cervical cancer screening is an important determinant explaining differences in the incidence of cervical cancer between countries. Offering devices for self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of hard-to-reach women. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the participation after an invitation including a self-sampling device (self-sampling arm) versus an invitation to have a sample taken by a health professional (control arm), sent to under-screened women. RESULTS: Sixteen randomised studies were found eligible. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the pooled participation in the self-sampling arm was 23.6% (95% confidence interval (CI)=20.2-27.3%), when self-sampling kits were sent by mail to all women, versus 10.3% (95% CI=6.2-15.2%) in the control arm (participation difference: 12.6% [95% CI=9.3-15.9]). When women had to opt-in to receive the self-sampling device, as used in three studies, the pooled participation was not higher in the self-sampling compared to the control arm (participation difference: 0.2% [95% CI=-4.5-4.9%]). CONCLUSION: An increased participation was observed in the self-sampling arm compared to the control arm, if self-sampling kits were sent directly to women at their home address. However, the size of the effect varied substantially among studies. Since participation was similar in both arms when women had to opt-in, future studies are warranted to discern opt-in scenarios that are most acceptable to women.
INTRODUCTION: Population coverage for cervical cancer screening is an important determinant explaining differences in the incidence of cervical cancer between countries. Offering devices for self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of hard-to-reach women. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the participation after an invitation including a self-sampling device (self-sampling arm) versus an invitation to have a sample taken by a health professional (control arm), sent to under-screened women. RESULTS: Sixteen randomised studies were found eligible. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the pooled participation in the self-sampling arm was 23.6% (95% confidence interval (CI)=20.2-27.3%), when self-sampling kits were sent by mail to all women, versus 10.3% (95% CI=6.2-15.2%) in the control arm (participation difference: 12.6% [95% CI=9.3-15.9]). When women had to opt-in to receive the self-sampling device, as used in three studies, the pooled participation was not higher in the self-sampling compared to the control arm (participation difference: 0.2% [95% CI=-4.5-4.9%]). CONCLUSION: An increased participation was observed in the self-sampling arm compared to the control arm, if self-sampling kits were sent directly to women at their home address. However, the size of the effect varied substantially among studies. Since participation was similar in both arms when women had to opt-in, future studies are warranted to discern opt-in scenarios that are most acceptable to women.
Authors: Liming Hu; David Bell; Sameer Antani; Zhiyun Xue; Kai Yu; Matthew P Horning; Noni Gachuhi; Benjamin Wilson; Mayoore S Jaiswal; Brian Befano; L Rodney Long; Rolando Herrero; Mark H Einstein; Robert D Burk; Maria Demarco; Julia C Gage; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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: 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: Alex Vorsters; Marc Arbyn; Marc Baay; Xavier Bosch; Silvia de Sanjosé; Sharon Hanley; Emilie Karafillakis; Pier Luigi Lopalco; Kevin G Pollock; Joanne Yarwood; Pierre Van Damme Journal: Papillomavirus Res Date: 2017-07-20