C Sarai Racey1, Dionne C Gesink1, Ann N Burchell1,2, Suzanne Trivers3, Tom Wong1,4, Anu Rebbapragada5. 1. 1 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto , Toronto, Canada . 2. 2 Department of Community and Family Medicine, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute , St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada . 3. 3 Mount Forest Family Health Team , Mount Forest, Canada . 4. 4 Health Canada , Ottawa, Canada . 5. 5 DynaCare , Brampton, Canada .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if cervical cancer screening uptake would increase among under-screened women living in rural Ontario, Canada, if at-home self-collected sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was offered as a primary cervical cancer screening modality, compared to invited papanicolaou (Pap) testing or routine opportunistic screening. METHODS:Women 30-70 years of age who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomized to receive (1) an at-home self-collected HPV kit, (2) a reminder invitation for Pap testing, or (3) standard of care opportunistic screening. The first two arms were also asked demographic and screening history questions. Women randomized to arm 1 were asked about acceptability. RESULTS: In total, 818 eligible women were identified in a small rural community in Southwestern Ontario: 335 received aself-collected HPV testing kit, 331 received a reminder letter, and 152 received standard of care. In the HPV self-collection arm, 21% (70/335) returned the sample and questionnaire and 11% (37/335) opted to undergo Pap testing. In total, 32% from the HPV self-collection arm, 15% (51/331) from the Pap invitation arm, and 8.5% (13/152) with standard of care were screened. Women receiving the self-collected HPV kit were 3.7 (95% confidence interval 2.2-6.4) times more likely to undergo screening compared to the standard of care arm. In the HPV self-sampling arm, 80% (56/70) said they would be very likely to choose self-collected sampling in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Providing self-collected sampling for HPV testing was more effective than sending reminder letters to increase screening coverage in under-screened women.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if cervical cancer screening uptake would increase among under-screened women living in rural Ontario, Canada, if at-home self-collected sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was offered as a primary cervical cancer screening modality, compared to invited papanicolaou (Pap) testing or routine opportunistic screening. METHODS:Women 30-70 years of age who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomized to receive (1) an at-home self-collected HPV kit, (2) a reminder invitation for Pap testing, or (3) standard of care opportunistic screening. The first two arms were also asked demographic and screening history questions. Women randomized to arm 1 were asked about acceptability. RESULTS: In total, 818 eligible women were identified in a small rural community in Southwestern Ontario: 335 received a self-collected HPV testing kit, 331 received a reminder letter, and 152 received standard of care. In the HPV self-collection arm, 21% (70/335) returned the sample and questionnaire and 11% (37/335) opted to undergo Pap testing. In total, 32% from the HPV self-collection arm, 15% (51/331) from the Pap invitation arm, and 8.5% (13/152) with standard of care were screened. Women receiving the self-collected HPV kit were 3.7 (95% confidence interval 2.2-6.4) times more likely to undergo screening compared to the standard of care arm. In the HPV self-sampling arm, 80% (56/70) said they would be very likely to choose self-collected sampling in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Providing self-collected sampling for HPV testing was more effective than sending reminder letters to increase screening coverage in under-screened women.
Authors: Andrea C Des Marais; Yuqian Zhao; Marcia M Hobbs; Vijay Sivaraman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.661
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: F Jalili; C O'Conaill; K Templeton; R Lotocki; G Fischer; L Manning; K Cormier; K Decker Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Paul L Reiter; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah McDonough; Mack T Ruffin; Martin Steinau; Elizabeth R Unger; Electra D Paskett; Mira L Katz Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.830
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: 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
Authors: Kimberly A Kilfoyle; Andrea C Des Marais; Mai Anh Ngo; LaHoma Romocki; Alice R Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.925