Karen Morgan1,2, Meram Azzani3, Si Lay Khaing4, Yut-Lin Wong5, Tin Tin Su5,6. 1. Perdana University Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland School of Medicine, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2. Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, MAHSA University, Saujana Putra Campus, Selangor, Malaysia. 4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 5. Centre for Population Health (CePH), Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 6. South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Female self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is an alternative screening method that can potentially increase cervical cancer screening coverage. This review addresses the acceptability of HPV DNA testing using self-sampling compared with conventional clinician-collected sampling. Barriers to and others factors associated with acceptability of either method were also examined. METHODS: The following electronic resources were searched: Medline @EBSCOHOST(Medline), Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Manual searches were also conducted. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of HPV DNA testing by self-sampling in comparison with clinician-collected sampling. RESULTS: In total, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. The majority (19 studies) were quantitative intervention studies and 4 studies were qualitative observational studies. Eleven studies reported a preference for self-sampling by women compared with clinician-collected sampling (64.7%-93%). The remaining studies found that women preferred clinician-collected sampling because mainly of respondents' lack of confidence in their ability to complete self-sampling correctly. In most articles reviewed, the studied associated factors, such as demographic factors (age, marital status, and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education level), reproductive factors (condom use, number of children, current use of contraception, and number of partners), and habits (smoking status) were not found to be significantly associated with preference. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of sampling were found to be acceptable to women. Self-sampling is cost-effective and could increase the screening coverage among underscreened populations. However, more information about the quality, reliability, and accuracy of self-sampling is needed to increase women's confidence about using to this method.
OBJECTIVES: Female self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is an alternative screening method that can potentially increase cervical cancer screening coverage. This review addresses the acceptability of HPV DNA testing using self-sampling compared with conventional clinician-collected sampling. Barriers to and others factors associated with acceptability of either method were also examined. METHODS: The following electronic resources were searched: Medline @EBSCOHOST(Medline), Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Manual searches were also conducted. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of HPV DNA testing by self-sampling in comparison with clinician-collected sampling. RESULTS: In total, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. The majority (19 studies) were quantitative intervention studies and 4 studies were qualitative observational studies. Eleven studies reported a preference for self-sampling by women compared with clinician-collected sampling (64.7%-93%). The remaining studies found that women preferred clinician-collected sampling because mainly of respondents' lack of confidence in their ability to complete self-sampling correctly. In most articles reviewed, the studied associated factors, such as demographic factors (age, marital status, and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education level), reproductive factors (condom use, number of children, current use of contraception, and number of partners), and habits (smoking status) were not found to be significantly associated with preference. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of sampling were found to be acceptable to women. Self-sampling is cost-effective and could increase the screening coverage among underscreened populations. However, more information about the quality, reliability, and accuracy of self-sampling is needed to increase women's confidence about using to this method.
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: Jessica Sormani; Bruno Kenfack; Ania Wisniak; Alida Moukam Datchoua; Sophie Lemoupa Makajio; Nicole C Schmidt; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrew Goldstein; Lena Sophia Goldstein; Roberta Lipson; Sarah Bedell; Jue Wang; Sarah A Stamper; Gal Brenner; Gail R Goldstein; Karen Davis O'Keefe; S Casey O'Keefe; McKenna O'Keefe; Tierney O'Keefe; Amelia R Goldstein; Anna Zhao Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 2.692