Literature DB >> 31054907

Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands.

Nicole J Polman1, Yanne de Haan2, Nienke J Veldhuijzen3, Daniëlle A M Heideman2, Henrica C W de Vet3, Chris J L M Meijer2, Leon F A G Massuger4, Folkert J van Kemenade5, Johannes Berkhof3.   

Abstract

Several countries offer HPV self-sampling for screening non-attendees. It is assumed that screening attendees also prefer self-sampling to clinician-based sampling, however, little research has been conducted with respect to this. Women participating in the IMPROVE-study were randomised (1:1) to self- or clinician-collected HPV testing, and HPV-positive women were retested using the other collection method. Three different questionnaires were sent out among a subset of participating women: Q1) HPV-positive women from both study groups were asked about their experiences with self-sampling and clinician-based sampling (n = 497); Q2) HPV-negative women from the self-sampling group were asked about their experiences with self-sampling (n = 2366); and Q3) HPV-negative women in the clinician-collection group were asked about their experiences with clinician-based sampling (n = 2092). Response rates ranged from 71.6 to 79.4%. Women reported significantly lower levels of shame, nervousness, discomfort and pain during self-sampling compared to clinician-based sampling. However, trust in correct sampling was significantly higher during clinician-based sampling. The majority of women in group Q1 preferred self-sampling (76.5%) to clinician-based sampling (11.9%) in future screening, while 11.6% of women reported to have no preference for either method. To conclude, women from a regular screening population have a positive attitude towards self-sampling but express some concerns with respect to accuracy. The majority prefers self-sampling to clinician-based sampling in future screening. Based on these results, a screening approach where women can choose for either self-sampling or clinician-based sampling seems highly justifiable.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical screening; Clinician-based sampling; Experience; HPV testing; Preference; Self-sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31054907     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.04.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  15 in total

Review 1.  Preferences and Experiences Regarding the Use of the Self-Sampling Device in hrHPV Screening for Cervical Cancer.

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

2.  Acceptability of innovative culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis strategies: a multi-method study on experiences regarding transrectal prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Sofie C M Tops; Anita M P Huis; Willeke Trompers; Anke J M Oerlemans; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Eva Kolwijck; Heiman F L Wertheim; Marlies E J L Hulscher
Journal:  JAC Antimicrob Resist       Date:  2021-11-17

3.  Experiences and preferences towards collecting a urine and cervicovaginal self-sample among women attending a colposcopy clinic.

Authors:  Mirte Schaafsma; Rianne van den Helder; Maaike C G Bleeker; Fleur Rosier-van Dunné; Irene A M van der Avoort; Renske D M Steenbergen; Nienke E van Trommel
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-02-28

4.  Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study.

Authors:  Federica Inturrisi; Clare A Aitken; Willem J G Melchers; Adriaan J C van den Brule; Anco Molijn; John W J Hinrichs; Hubert G M Niesters; Albert G Siebers; Rob Schuurman; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Inge M C M de Kok; Ruud L M Bekkers; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2021-11-09

5.  Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.

Authors:  Hannah Drysdale; Laura Av Marlow; Anita Lim; Peter Sasieni; Jo Waller
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 1.687

6.  The association between cervical cancer screening participation and the deprivation index of the location of the family doctor's office.

Authors:  Fanny Serman; Jonathan Favre; Valérie Deken; Lydia Guittet; Claire Collins; Michaël Rochoy; Nassir Messaadi; Alain Duhamel; Ludivine Launay; Christophe Berkhout; Thibaut Raginel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Introduction of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in Central America: The Scale-Up project.

Authors:  Francesca Holme; Jose Jeronimo; Francisco Maldonado; Claudia Camel; Manuel Sandoval; Benito Martinez-Granera; Mirna Montenegro; Jacqueline Figueroa; Rose Slavkovsky; Kerry A Thomson; Silvia de Sanjose
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  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

9.  European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) joint considerations about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, screening programs, colposcopy, and surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Andrea Ciavattini; Giovanni Delli Carpini; Luca Giannella; Marc Arbyn; Maria Kyrgiou; Elmar A Joura; Jalid Sehouli; Xavier Carcopino; Charles W Redman; Pekka Nieminen; Maggie Cruickshank; Murat Gultekin
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 3.437

10.  Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening in Under-Screened Women in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Siew-Fei Ngu; Lesley S K Lau; Justin Li; Grace C Y Wong; Annie N Y Cheung; Hextan Y S Ngan; Karen K L Chan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.