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. 1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Synteract, Inc., Morrisville, NC. 4. North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC. 5. East Carolina University, Greensville, NC. 6. American Sexual Health Association, Research Triangle Park, NC. 7. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 8. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 9. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC.
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.
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.
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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: 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
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