Paul L Reiter, Abigail B Shoben, Deborah McDonough1, Mack T Ruffin2, Martin Steinau3, Elizabeth R Unger4, Electra D Paskett, Mira L Katz. 1. Valley View Health Centers, Waverly, OH. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. 3. Division of Global HIV and TB, Center for Global Health, and. 4. Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing is an emerging cervical cancer screening strategy, yet few mail-based HPV self-testing programs have been implemented in the United States. We report the results of a pilot study of a mail-based program, the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project. METHODS:In 2015 to 2016, we recruited 103 women from Appalachian Ohio who were aged 30 to 65 years and had not received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test in at least 3 years. Women were mailed an HPV self-test and randomized to receive either (a) self-test instructions developed by the device manufacturer and a standard information brochure about cervical cancer (control group) or (b) self-test instructions developed by the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project and a photo story information brochure about cervical cancer (intervention group). Logistic regression compared study arms on HPV self-test return and receipt of a Pap test. RESULTS: Overall, 80 (78%) women returned their HPV self-test. Return was similar among the intervention and control groups (78% vs. 77%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.76). Among returners, 26% had an oncogenic HPV type detected in their sample. Women who returned their self-test reported high levels of satisfaction and positive experiences with the self-testing process. Few women overall received a Pap test (11%), and Pap testing was similar among the intervention and control groups (14% vs. 8%; odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-6.97). CONCLUSIONS:Mail-based HPV self-testing programs are a potentially promising strategy for reaching underscreened women in Appalachia. Efforts are needed to better understand how to optimize the success of such programs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing is an emerging cervical cancer screening strategy, yet few mail-based HPV self-testing programs have been implemented in the United States. We report the results of a pilot study of a mail-based program, the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project. METHODS: In 2015 to 2016, we recruited 103 women from Appalachian Ohio who were aged 30 to 65 years and had not received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test in at least 3 years. Women were mailed an HPV self-test and randomized to receive either (a) self-test instructions developed by the device manufacturer and a standard information brochure about cervical cancer (control group) or (b) self-test instructions developed by the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project and a photo story information brochure about cervical cancer (intervention group). Logistic regression compared study arms on HPV self-test return and receipt of a Pap test. RESULTS: Overall, 80 (78%) women returned their HPV self-test. Return was similar among the intervention and control groups (78% vs. 77%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.76). Among returners, 26% had an oncogenic HPV type detected in their sample. Women who returned their self-test reported high levels of satisfaction and positive experiences with the self-testing process. Few women overall received a Pap test (11%), and Pap testing was similar among the intervention and control groups (14% vs. 8%; odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-6.97). CONCLUSIONS: Mail-based HPV self-testing programs are a potentially promising strategy for reaching underscreened women in Appalachia. Efforts are needed to better understand how to optimize the success of such programs.
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: Paul L Reiter; James L Fisher; Alana G Hudson; Thomas C Tucker; Jesse J Plascak; Electra D Paskett Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Alice R Richman; Noel T Brewer; Aliza K Liebman; Allen C Rinas; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 3.519
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: Fan Lee; Alexandra Bukowski; Lisa P Spees; Stephanie B Wheeler; Noel T Brewer; Busola Sanusi; Michael G Hudgens; Sarah Jackson; Lynn Barclay; Alicia Carter; Jennifer H Tang; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.868