Eribeth Penaranda1, Jennifer Molokwu, Silvia Flores, Theresa Byrd, Louis Brown, Navkiran Shokar. 1. 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA; 2Department of Public Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX; and 3Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, El Paso, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability and intention to use cervicovaginal self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus infection after receiving an educational intervention among the predominantly Hispanic population residing along the US-Mexico border. METHODS: Women received an educational intervention about cervical cancer prevention through screening with conventional cytology and with self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus. After the educational intervention, women performed the self-sampling test. Women's attitudes toward the self-sampling test and cervical cytology were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 110 women aged 30 to 65 years completed the study. The mean (SD) age of the population was 48 (9.3) years. Most (87%) self-identified as being Hispanic and half were born in Mexico; 16% had not had cervical cytology done in 3 years. Self-sampling was more acceptable than cervical cytology; mean (SD) acceptability scores were 25.0 (2.9) and 22.7 (3.0), respectively, with the maximum possible score being 28 (p < .001). A large proportion (42.7%) of women preferred both tests equally. We found high intention to use and recommend self-sampling. Contrary to previous studies, there were no differences between cervical cytology and self-sampling regarding women's concerns about performing the test well and the accuracy of the test, which we attribute to the educational intervention. CONCLUSION: The high acceptability of self-sampling after participants received education about the test and the reported intention to use it if made available add to the evidence on the feasibility of integrating self-testing within cervical cancer screening guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability and intention to use cervicovaginal self-sampling for high-risk humanpapillomavirus infection after receiving an educational intervention among the predominantly Hispanic population residing along the US-Mexico border. METHODS:Women received an educational intervention about cervical cancer prevention through screening with conventional cytology and with self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus. After the educational intervention, women performed the self-sampling test. Women's attitudes toward the self-sampling test and cervical cytology were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 110 women aged 30 to 65 years completed the study. The mean (SD) age of the population was 48 (9.3) years. Most (87%) self-identified as being Hispanic and half were born in Mexico; 16% had not had cervical cytology done in 3 years. Self-sampling was more acceptable than cervical cytology; mean (SD) acceptability scores were 25.0 (2.9) and 22.7 (3.0), respectively, with the maximum possible score being 28 (p < .001). A large proportion (42.7%) of women preferred both tests equally. We found high intention to use and recommend self-sampling. Contrary to previous studies, there were no differences between cervical cytology and self-sampling regarding women's concerns about performing the test well and the accuracy of the test, which we attribute to the educational intervention. CONCLUSION: The high acceptability of self-sampling after participants received education about the test and the reported intention to use it if made available add to the evidence on the feasibility of integrating self-testing within cervical cancer screening guidelines.
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Philip E Castle; Alfio Rausa; Tameka Walls; Patti E Gravitt; Edward E Partridge; Vanessa Olivo; Shelley Niwa; Kerry Grace Morrissey; Laura Tucker; Hormuzd Katki; Isabel Scarinci Journal: Prev Med Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Murat Gök; Folkert J van Kemenade; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Johannes Berkhof; Lawrence Rozendaal; Johan W M Spruyt; Jeroen A M Beliën; Milena Babovic; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Tomas Nuño; Philip E Castle; Robin Harris; Antonio Estrada; Francisco García Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Israel De Alba; Hoda Anton-Culver; F Allan Hubbell; Argyrios Ziogas; James R Hess; America Bracho; Caleb Arias; Alberto Manetta Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A Szarewski; L Cadman; D Mesher; J Austin; L Ashdown-Barr; R Edwards; D Lyons; J Walker; J Christison; A Frater; J Waller Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Caitlin B Biddell; Meghan C O'Leary; Stephanie B Wheeler; Lisa P Spees Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Manuela Viviano; Rosa Catarino; Emilien Jeannot; Michel Boulvain; Manuela Undurraga Malinverno; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 7.640
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: Anna Gottschlich; Alvaro Rivera-Andrade; Edwin Grajeda; Christian Alvarez; Carlos Mendoza Montano; Rafael Meza Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2017-01-18