Jasmin A Tiro1, Andrea C Betts1,2, Kilian Kimbel3, Diana S M Buist3, Constance Mao4, Hongyuan Gao3, Lisa Shulman3, Colin Malone5, Tara Beatty3, John Lin6, Chris Thayer7, Diana L Miglioretti3,8, Rachel L Winer3,5. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, Texas. 2. 2 Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, UT , School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas. 3. 3 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington. 4. 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 5. 5 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 6. 6 Department of Pathology, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 7. 7 Kaiser Permanente Washington , Renton, Washington. 8. 8 Division of Biostatistics, University of California Davis , Davis, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We explored patient perspectives after a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling result to describe experiences and information needs for this home-based screening modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited women who tested high-risk (hr) HPV positive during a pragmatic trial evaluating mailed hrHPV self-sampling kits as an outreach strategy for women overdue for Pap screening in a U.S. integrated health care system. Telephone interviews were conducted from 2014 to 2017. Five independent coders analyzed transcripts using iterative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-six women (61% of invited; median age 55.5 years) completed a semistructured interview. Six themes emerged: (1) convenience of home-based screening, (2) intense feelings and emotions after receiving positive kit results, (3) importance of seeing provider and discussing kit results, (4) information seeking from various sources, (5) confusion about purpose and meaning of HPV versus Pap tests, and (6) concern that HPV self-sampling is inaccurate when the subsequent Pap test is normal. CONCLUSIONS: Although women liked the kit's convenience, discussion about discordant home HPV and in-clinic Pap results led them to question the accuracy of HPV self-sampling. Patient-provider communication around home HPV kits is more complex than for reflex or cotesting because clinician-collected Pap results are unknown at the time of the positive kit result. Patients need education about differences between HPV and Pap tests and how they are used for screening and follow-up. To reassure patients and keep them interested in self-sampling, education should be provided at multiple time points during the screening process.
OBJECTIVE: We explored patient perspectives after a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling result to describe experiences and information needs for this home-based screening modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited women who tested high-risk (hr) HPV positive during a pragmatic trial evaluating mailed hrHPV self-sampling kits as an outreach strategy for women overdue for Pap screening in a U.S. integrated health care system. Telephone interviews were conducted from 2014 to 2017. Five independent coders analyzed transcripts using iterative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-six women (61% of invited; median age 55.5 years) completed a semistructured interview. Six themes emerged: (1) convenience of home-based screening, (2) intense feelings and emotions after receiving positive kit results, (3) importance of seeing provider and discussing kit results, (4) information seeking from various sources, (5) confusion about purpose and meaning of HPV versus Pap tests, and (6) concern that HPV self-sampling is inaccurate when the subsequent Pap test is normal. CONCLUSIONS: Although women liked the kit's convenience, discussion about discordant home HPV and in-clinic Pap results led them to question the accuracy of HPV self-sampling. Patient-provider communication around home HPV kits is more complex than for reflex or cotesting because clinician-collected Pap results are unknown at the time of the positive kit result. Patients need education about differences between HPV and Pap tests and how they are used for screening and follow-up. To reassure patients and keep them interested in self-sampling, education should be provided at multiple time points during the screening process.
Entities:
Keywords:
early detection of cancer; human papillomavirus DNA tests; mass screening; qualitative research; uterine cervical neoplasms
Authors: Colin Malone; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana Sm Buist; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Kilian Kimbel; Hongyuan Gao; Chris Thayer; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel L Winer Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Karine Dubé; John Kanazawa; Christopher Roebuck; Steven Johnson; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Beth Peterson; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Lisa Shipley; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: HIV Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: Laura Marlow; Alice S Forster; Emily McBride; Lauren Rockliffe; Henry Kitchener; Jo Waller Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Karine Dubé; Shadi Eskaf; Elizabeth Hastie; Harsh Agarwal; Laney Henley; Christopher Roebuck; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Jeff Taylor; Derrick Mapp; Danielle M Campbell; Thomas J Villa; Beth Peterson; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Lisa Shipley; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-07
Authors: Andrea Ciavattini; Giovanni Delli Carpini; Luca Giannella; Anna Del Fabro; Vivek Banerji; Genevieve Hall; Maggiorino Barbero; Francesco Sopracordevole Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Rebecca B Perkins; Rachael Adcock; Vicki Benard; Jack Cuzick; Alan Waxman; Jean Howe; Stephanie Melkonian; Janis Gonzales; Charles Wiggins; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Karine Dubé; Harsh Agarwal; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Jeff Taylor; Christopher Roebuck; Beth Peterson; Hursch Patel; Samuel Ndukwe; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Livio Azzoni; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: HIV Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-08-02