Colin Malone1, Jasmin A Tiro2, Diana Sm Buist3, Tara Beatty3, John Lin1, Kilian Kimbel3, Hongyuan Gao3, Chris Thayer4, Diana L Miglioretti3,5, Rachel L Winer1,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Washington, Renton, WA, USA. 5. Division of Biostatistics, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate experiences and reactions after receiving a mailed, unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kit and identify psychosocial correlates of using kits. METHODS:Survey participants were underscreened women aged 30-64 who were mailed human papillomavirus kits as part of a pragmatic trial at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a United States integrated health care system. Six months after the mailing, we invited kit returners and non-returners to complete a web survey that measured psychosocial factors (e.g. cervical cancer/human papillomavirus knowledge, attitudes toward screening), experiences, and reactions to kits. We compared responses between kit returners and non-returners. RESULTS: Comparing 116 kit returners (272 invited) and 119 non-returners (1083 invited), we found no clinically significant differences in psychosocial factors. Overall, survey respondents showed knowledge gaps in human papillomavirus natural history (82% did not know human papillomavirus infection can clear on its own) and interpreting human papillomavirus test results (37% did not know a human papillomavirus-negative result indicates low cancer risk). Kit returners found kits convenient and easy to use (>90%). The most common reason for non-return was low confidence in ability to correctly use a kit, although many non-returners (49%) indicated that they would consider future use. Women reported low trust in human papillomavirus testing to identify women at high risk for cervical cancer (52% in returners, 42% in non-returners). CONCLUSIONS: Screening programs could improve uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling through outreach materials that emphasize the high efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening and educate patients about how to interpret results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate experiences and reactions after receiving a mailed, unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kit and identify psychosocial correlates of using kits. METHODS: Survey participants were underscreened women aged 30-64 who were mailed human papillomavirus kits as part of a pragmatic trial at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a United States integrated health care system. Six months after the mailing, we invited kit returners and non-returners to complete a web survey that measured psychosocial factors (e.g. cervical cancer/human papillomavirus knowledge, attitudes toward screening), experiences, and reactions to kits. We compared responses between kit returners and non-returners. RESULTS: Comparing 116 kit returners (272 invited) and 119 non-returners (1083 invited), we found no clinically significant differences in psychosocial factors. Overall, survey respondents showed knowledge gaps in human papillomavirus natural history (82% did not know human papillomavirus infection can clear on its own) and interpreting human papillomavirus test results (37% did not know a human papillomavirus-negative result indicates low cancer risk). Kit returners found kits convenient and easy to use (>90%). The most common reason for non-return was low confidence in ability to correctly use a kit, although many non-returners (49%) indicated that they would consider future use. Women reported low trust in human papillomavirus testing to identify women at high risk for cervical cancer (52% in returners, 42% in non-returners). CONCLUSIONS: Screening programs could improve uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling through outreach materials that emphasize the high efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening and educate patients about how to interpret results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human papillomavirus DNA tests; cervical cancer screening; early detection of cancer; embedded research; pragmatic randomized trial; surveys and questionnaires
Authors: Erik J Nelson; Brandy R Maynard; Travis Loux; Jessica Fatla; Rebecca Gordon; Lauren D Arnold Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Gianfranco Damiani; Danila Basso; Anna Acampora; Caterina B N A Bianchi; Giulia Silvestrini; Emanuela M Frisicale; Franco Sassi; Walter Ricciardi Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: P J W Ketelaars; R P Bosgraaf; A G Siebers; L F A G Massuger; J C van der Linden; C A P Wauters; J C Rahamat-Langendoen; A J C van den Brule; J IntHout; W J G Melchers; R L M Bekkers Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Farhana Sultana; Robyn Mullins; Dallas R English; Julie A Simpson; Kelly T Drennan; Stella Heley; C David Wrede; Julia M L Brotherton; Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.018