Bari Laskow1, Ruben Figueroa1, Karla M Alfaro1, Isabel C Scarinci2, Elizabeth Conlisk3, Mauricio Maza1, Judy C Chang4, Miriam Cremer5. 1. Basic Health International, San Salvador, El Salvador. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. School of Natural Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, USA. 4. Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish the feasibility and acceptability of home-based HPV self-sampling among women who did not attend screening appointments in rural El Salvador. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, data were collected from May 2015 to January 2016 among 60 women aged 30-59 years who were not pregnant, provided informed consent, had not been screened in 2 years, had no history of pre-cancer treatment, and did not attend a scheduled HPV screening. Participants completed questionnaires and received educational information before being given an opportunity to self-sample with the Hybrid Capture 2 High Risk HPV DNA Test. RESULTS: Self-sampling was accepted by 41 (68%) participants. Almost all women chose to self-sample because the process was easy (40/41, 98%), could be performed at home (40/41, 98%), and saved time (38/41, 93%), and because they felt less embarrassed (33/41, 80%). The most common reason for declining the test was not wanting to be screened (8/19, 42%). The prevalence of high-risk HPV types among women who accepted self-sampling was 17% (7/41). CONCLUSION: For most women, community-based self-sampling was an acceptable way to participate in a cervical cancer screening program. In low-resource countries, incorporating community-based self-sampling into screening programs might improve coverage of high-risk women.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the feasibility and acceptability of home-based HPV self-sampling among women who did not attend screening appointments in rural El Salvador. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, data were collected from May 2015 to January 2016 among 60 women aged 30-59 years who were not pregnant, provided informed consent, had not been screened in 2 years, had no history of pre-cancer treatment, and did not attend a scheduled HPV screening. Participants completed questionnaires and received educational information before being given an opportunity to self-sample with the Hybrid Capture 2 High Risk HPV DNA Test. RESULTS: Self-sampling was accepted by 41 (68%) participants. Almost all women chose to self-sample because the process was easy (40/41, 98%), could be performed at home (40/41, 98%), and saved time (38/41, 93%), and because they felt less embarrassed (33/41, 80%). The most common reason for declining the test was not wanting to be screened (8/19, 42%). The prevalence of high-risk HPV types among women who accepted self-sampling was 17% (7/41). CONCLUSION: For most women, community-based self-sampling was an acceptable way to participate in a cervical cancer screening program. In low-resource countries, incorporating community-based self-sampling into screening programs might improve coverage of high-risk women.