Literature DB >> 30606304

South African women's perspectives on self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study.

R Saidu1, J Moodley, A Tergas, M Momberg, R Boa, T Wright, S Campbell, C Svanholm-Barrie, D Persing, L Kuhn, L Denny.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-sampling as a method of screening for cervical cancer and its precursors is an attractive option for low-resource settings. However, to allow successful integration of self-sampling into national screening programmes, it is necessary to understand women's perceptions and beliefs surrounding this method of sampling the cervix.
OBJECTIVES: To explore women's attitudes to self-collection of samples for cervical screening in a low-resource setting in South Africa (SA).
METHODS: Mixed methods were used to meet the study objectives. We recruited women aged 30 - 65 years into a study in Cape Town, SA, to participate in a cross-sectional survey. All women collected a vaginal self-sample, and underwent visual inspection with acetic acid, colposcopy, and collection of cervical samples and appropriate histology specimens by a doctor. Women had a quantitative questionnaire-based exit interview. A subset of these women participated in focus group discussions (FGDs).
RESULTS: A total of 822 women answered the exit survey questionnaire and 41 women participated in the FGDs. Most women from the survey had a positive perception of self-sampling, with 93.6% of the women reporting not feeling embarrassed and 89.4% reporting experiencing no discomfort at all when taking a self-sample. This was corroborated by the FGD participants, who found self-sampling easier, more comfortable and less embarrassing than clinician sampling. However, many women (64.7%) felt more confident when the sample was taken by a clinician, despite having a positive attitude towards self-sampling. In most cases this was because they thought that the clinician would take a better sample, as explained by the FGD participants. Although 93.9% of the women were willing to collect a self-sample, the women in the FGDs expressed a preference for doing so at the health facility rather than at home. There were many reasons for this, including the cost of returning to the clinic with the sample.
CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes regarding self-sample collection were positive in this study population. Participants were willing to perform self-sampling, but expressed concerns regarding the quality of the specimen and the financial implications of returning to the clinic with it. Pilot implementation studies will be useful before this method of sampling is adopted and integrated into screening programmes.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 30606304     DOI: 10.7196/SAMJ.2018.v109i1.13278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  S Afr Med J


  4 in total

1.  Knowledge, attitude and practice of female university students regarding human papillomavirus and self-sampling in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Miracle Tamaraebi Eche; Kerry Vermaak
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.809

2.  High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal samples compared with healthcare worker collected cervical samples among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa.

Authors:  Teboho Amelia Tiiti; Tebogo Loraine Mashishi; Varsetile Varster Nkwinika; Ina Benoy; Selokela Gloria Selabe; Johannes Bogers; Ramokone Lisbeth Lebelo
Journal:  Virol J       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 4.099

3.  Acceptability of self- collection for human papillomavirus detection in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Authors:  Ongeziwe Taku; Tracy L Meiring; Inger Gustavsson; Keletso Phohlo; Mirta Garcia-Jardon; Zizipho Z A Mbulawa; Charles B Businge; Ulf Gyllensten; Anna-Lise Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Performance of Xpert HPV on Self-collected Vaginal Samples for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in South Africa.

Authors:  Rakiya Saidu; Louise Kuhn; Ana Tergas; Rosalind Boa; Jennifer Moodley; Cecilia Svanholm-Barrie; David Persing; Scott Campbell; Wei-Yann Tsai; Thomas C Wright; Lynette Denny
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.842

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.