Kumar Ilangovan1, Erin Kobetz2,3, Tulay Koru-Sengul3, Erin N Marcus2, Brendaly Rodriguez2, Yisel Alonzo2, Olveen Carrasquillo2,3. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Family Medicine, and Community Health, Florida International University , Miami, Florida. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine , Miami, Florida. 3. 3 Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine , Miami, Florida.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Women in safety-net institutions are less likely to receive cervical cancer screening. Human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling is an alternative method of cervical cancer screening. We examine the acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling among patients and clinic staff in two safety-net clinics in Miami. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Haitian and Latina women aged 30-65 years with no Pap smear in the past 3 years were recruited. Women were offered HPV self-sampling or traditional Pap smear screening. The acceptability of HPV self-sampling among patients and clinic staff was assessed. If traditional screening was preferred the medical record was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 180 women were recruited (134 Latinas and 46 Haitian). HPV self-sampling was selected by 67% women. Among those selecting traditional screening, 22% were not screened 5 months postrecruitment. Over 80% of women agreed HPV self-sampling was faster, more private, easy to use, and would prefer to use again. Among clinic staff, 80% agreed they would be willing to incorporate HPV self-sampling into practice. CONCLUSIONS: HPV self-sampling was both acceptable and feasible to participants and clinic staff and may help overcome barriers to screening.
OBJECTIVES:Women in safety-net institutions are less likely to receive cervical cancer screening. Human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling is an alternative method of cervical cancer screening. We examine the acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling among patients and clinic staff in two safety-net clinics in Miami. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Haitian and Latina women aged 30-65 years with no Pap smear in the past 3 years were recruited. Women were offered HPV self-sampling or traditional Pap smear screening. The acceptability of HPV self-sampling among patients and clinic staff was assessed. If traditional screening was preferred the medical record was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 180 women were recruited (134 Latinas and 46 Haitian). HPV self-sampling was selected by 67% women. Among those selecting traditional screening, 22% were not screened 5 months postrecruitment. Over 80% of women agreed HPV self-sampling was faster, more private, easy to use, and would prefer to use again. Among clinic staff, 80% agreed they would be willing to incorporate HPV self-sampling into practice. CONCLUSIONS:HPV self-sampling was both acceptable and feasible to participants and clinic staff and may help overcome barriers to screening.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Gertrude A Owusu; Susan Brown Eve; Cynthia M Cready; Kenneth Koelln; Fernando Trevino; Ximena Urrutia-Rojas; Joanne Baumer Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2005-09
Authors: P Giorgi Rossi; C Fortunato; P Barbarino; S Boveri; S Caroli; A Del Mistro; A Ferro; C Giammaria; M Manfredi; T Moretto; A Pasquini; M Sideri; M C Tufi; C Cogo; E Altobelli Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 7.640
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: 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: 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: Chelsea Anderson; Lindsay Breithaupt; Andrea Des Marais; Charlotte Rastas; Alice Richman; Lynn Barclay; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Ajleeta Sangtani; Chen Wang; Amy Weaver; Nicole L Hoppman; Sarah E Kerr; Alexej Abyzov; Viji Shridhar; Julie Staub; Jean-Pierre A Kocher; Jesse S Voss; Karl C Podratz; Nicolas Wentzensen; John B Kisiel; Mark E Sherman; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.482