M Saville1, D Hawkes2, E Mclachlan3, S Anderson4, K Arabena3. 1. Victorian Cytology Service, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 2. Victorian Cytology Service, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 3. Indigenous Health Equity Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; and. 4. Ballarat and District Aboriginal Collective, Baarlinjan Medical Clinic, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Commencing 1 December 2017, Australia introduced human papillomavirus (hpv)-based cervical screening. As part of this Australian renewed National Cervical Screening Program (ncsp) women who are either never- or under-screened and who refuse a practitioner collected sample will be able to collect their own sample for cervical screening. The aim of this study is to examine the quantitative results of a pilot study into the acceptability of the self-collection alternative pathway. METHODS: Eligible participants were offered the opportunity to collect their own sample. Those who agreed were given a flocked swab and an instruction sheet and took their own sample in an area of the health care clinic that afforded them adequate privacy. These samples were then given to clinic staff who returned them to Victorian Cytology Service (vcs) Pathology for hpv nucleic acid testing. RESULTS: Of 98 eligible women, seventy-nine undertook self-collection for hpv-based cervical screening. Seventy-seven produced valid results, 14 were positive for oncogenic hpv, with 10 undertaking follow-up. Three women were found to have cervical squamous abnormalities with two of those being high-grade intraepithelial squamous lesions. CONCLUSION: The pilot study for self-collection for cervical screening produced quantitative data that were similar to that already reported in the literature, but had a much higher rate of acceptance compared with self-collection programs based in the home.
BACKGROUND: Commencing 1 December 2017, Australia introduced human papillomavirus (hpv)-based cervical screening. As part of this Australian renewed National Cervical Screening Program (ncsp) women who are either never- or under-screened and who refuse a practitioner collected sample will be able to collect their own sample for cervical screening. The aim of this study is to examine the quantitative results of a pilot study into the acceptability of the self-collection alternative pathway. METHODS: Eligible participants were offered the opportunity to collect their own sample. Those who agreed were given a flocked swab and an instruction sheet and took their own sample in an area of the health care clinic that afforded them adequate privacy. These samples were then given to clinic staff who returned them to Victorian Cytology Service (vcs) Pathology for hpv nucleic acid testing. RESULTS: Of 98 eligible women, seventy-nine undertook self-collection for hpv-based cervical screening. Seventy-seven produced valid results, 14 were positive for oncogenic hpv, with 10 undertaking follow-up. Three women were found to have cervical squamous abnormalities with two of those being high-grade intraepithelial squamous lesions. CONCLUSION: The pilot study for self-collection for cervical screening produced quantitative data that were similar to that already reported in the literature, but had a much higher rate of acceptance compared with self-collection programs based in the home.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human papillomavirus (hpv); cervical cancer screening; diagnostic testing; self-collection
Authors: Farhana Sultana; Dallas R English; Julie A Simpson; Kelly T Drennan; Robyn Mullins; Julia M L Brotherton; C David Wrede; Stella Heley; Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sarah L Osborne; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Julia M L Brotherton; Alyssa M Cornall; John D Wark; C David Wrede; Yasmin Jayasinghe; Dorota M Gertig; Marian K Pitts; Suzanne M Garland Journal: Vaccine Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Julia M L Brotherton; John R Condon; Peter B McIntyre; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Michael Malloy; Suzanne M Garland; On Behalf Of The Whinurs Study Group Journal: Sex Health Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Karen Canfell; Michael Caruana; Val Gebski; Jessica Darlington-Brown; Stella Heley; Julia Brotherton; Dorota Gertig; Chloe J Jennett; Annabelle Farnsworth; Jeffrey Tan; C David Wrede; Philip E Castle; Marion Saville Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joakim Dillner; Matejka Rebolj; Philippe Birembaut; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Anne Szarewski; Christian Munk; Silvia de Sanjose; Pontus Naucler; Belen Lloveras; Susanne Kjaer; Jack Cuzick; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Christine Clavel; Thomas Iftner Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-10-13
Authors: J U H Lam; M Rebolj; D M Ejegod; H Pedersen; C Rygaard; E Lynge; E Harder; L T Thomsen; S K Kjaer; J Bonde Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Nicola S Creagh; Claire Zammit; Julia Ml Brotherton; Marion Saville; Tracey McDermott; Claire Nightingale; Margaret Kelaher Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Tamara L Butler; Natasha Lee; Kate Anderson; Julia M L Brotherton; Joan Cunningham; John R Condon; Gail Garvey; Allison Tong; Suzanne P Moore; Clare M Maher; Jacqueline K Mein; Eloise F Warren; Lisa J Whop Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Runzhi Wang; Kristen Lee; Charlotte A Gaydos; Jean Anderson; Jean Keller; Jenell Coleman Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Siew-Fei Ngu; Lesley S K Lau; Justin Li; Grace C Y Wong; Annie N Y Cheung; Hextan Y S Ngan; Karen K L Chan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.390