Literature DB >> 30179994

Preference for Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection and Papanicolaou: Survey of Underscreened Women in North Carolina.

Kimberly A Kilfoyle1, Andrea C Des Marais2, Mai Anh Ngo3, LaHoma Romocki4, Alice R Richman5, Lynn Barclay6, Noel T Brewer7,8, Lisa Rahangdale8,9, Jennifer S Smith2,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (self-collection) has the potential to increase cervical cancer screening among underscreened women. We assessed attitudes toward at-home HPV self-collection compared with clinic-based Pap testing in this higher-risk population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were low-income women in North Carolina overdue for cervical cancer screening. Women self-collected samples at home, returned samples by mail for HPV testing, and completed phone questionnaires about at-home HPV self-collection. Participants were referred to clinic-based Pap testing and invited to complete a second questionnaire about Pap testing. A cross-sectional questionnaire compared attitudes, experiences, and preferences for self-collection versus Pap testing and assessed predictors of preference for HPV self-collection.
RESULTS: Half (51%) of 221 women reported a preference for HPV self-collection, 19% preferred Pap testing, and 27% reported no preference. More women reported difficulty finding time to do the Pap test (31%) than the self-test (13%, p = .003) and being afraid of the self-test results (50%) than the Pap test results (36%, p = .02). There were relatively fewer reports of physical discomfort and pain from self-collection than Pap testing (discomfort: 18% self; 48% Pap; pain: 8% self; 30% Pap, p = .001). No differences were found in positive versus negative thoughts about the tests, trust in the tests' safety and accuracy, or willingness to do tests again.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall positive attitudes toward HPV self-collection compared with Pap testing among underscreened women suggest that self-collection is a promising option to increase cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30179994      PMCID: PMC6174678          DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  23 in total

1.  Home-based HPV self-sampling improves participation by never-screened and under-screened women: Results from a large randomized trial (iPap) in Australia.

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

2.  Self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for cervical cancer screening: an exploratory study of acceptability among medically underserved women in rural Appalachia.

Authors:  Robin C Vanderpool; Maudella G Jones; Lindsay R Stradtman; Jennifer S Smith; Richard A Crosby
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Surveillance for certain health behaviors among states and selected local areas--Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2011.

Authors:  Fang Xu; Tebitha Mawokomatanda; David Flegel; Carol Pierannunzi; William Garvin; Pranesh Chowdhury; Simone Salandy; Carol Crawford; Machell Town
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2014-10-24

4.  Cancer statistics, 2010.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Jiaquan Xu; Elizabeth Ward
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Acceptability of human papillomavirus self testing in female adolescents.

Authors:  J A Kahn; D I Bernstein; S L Rosenthal; B Huang; L M Kollar; J L Colyer; A M Tissot; P A Hillard; D Witte; P Groen; G B Slap
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.519

6.  Risk factors for HPV DNA detection in middle-aged women.

Authors:  N Muñoz; I Kato; F X Bosch; J Eluf-Neto; S De Sanjosé; N Ascunce; M Gili; I Izarzugaza; P Viladiu; M J Tormo; P Moreo; L C Gonzalez; L Tafur; J M Walboomers; K V Shah
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 7.  Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Freija Verdoodt; Peter J F Snijders; Viola M J Verhoef; Eero Suonio; Lena Dillner; Silvia Minozzi; Cristina Bellisario; Rita Banzi; Fang-Hui Zhao; Peter Hillemanns; Ahti Anttila
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action.

Authors:  Lindley Barbee; Erin Kobetz; Janelle Menard; Nicole Cook; Jenny Blanco; Betsy Barton; Pascale Auguste; Nathalie McKenzie
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability.

Authors:  C Sarai Racey; Dionne C Gesink; Ann N Burchell; Suzanne Trivers; Tom Wong; Anu Rebbapragada
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer incidence rates in the United States, 1992-2003.

Authors:  Jean A McDougall; Margaret M Madeleine; Janet R Daling; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-09-06       Impact factor: 2.506

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

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

2.  Acceptability of Human Papilloma Virus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in a Cohort of Patients from Romania (Stage 2).

Authors:  Mihaela Grigore; Ingrid-Andrada Vasilache; Petru Cianga; Daniela Constantinescu; Odetta Duma; Roxana Daniela Matasariu; Ioana-Sadiye Scripcariu
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences.

Authors:  Holly Nishimura; Ping Teresa Yeh; Habibat Oguntade; Caitlin E Kennedy; Manjulaa Narasimhan
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2021-05

4.  Technical note: Low clinical efficacy, but good acceptability of a point-of-care electronic palpation device for breast cancer screening for a lower middle-income environment.

Authors:  Dustin Valdez; Teofila Cruz; Stephanie Rania; Grazyna Badowski; Kevin Cassel; Thomas Wolfgruber; Scott Grosskreutz; Louis J Dulana; Roy Adonay; Gertraud Maskarinec; John A Shepherd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Preferences and Experiences Regarding the Use of the Self-Sampling Device in hrHPV Screening for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Marjolein Dieleman; Jolien de Waard; G Bea A Wisman; Ed Schuuring; Martha D Esajas; Karin M Vermeulen; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.883

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.