Literature DB >> 31744374

Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Human papillomavirus DNA tests; cervical cancer screening; early detection of cancer; embedded research; pragmatic randomized trial; surveys and questionnaires

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31744374      PMCID: PMC7237324          DOI: 10.1177/0969141319885994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  38 in total

1.  Assessing women's willingness to collect their own cervical samples for HPV testing as part of the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda.

Authors:  Sheona Mitchell; Gina Ogilvie; Malcolm Steinberg; Musa Sekikubo; Christine Biryabarema; Deborah Money
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 3.561

Review 2.  The acceptability of self-sampled screening for HPV DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

3.  Acceptability of self-collection of specimens for HPV DNA testing in an urban population.

Authors:  R Anhang; J A Nelson; R Telerant; M A Chiasson; Thomas C Wright
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Rationale and design of the HOME trial: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system.

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

5.  Construct validity and invariance of four factors associated with colorectal cancer screening across gender, race, and prior screening.

Authors:  Amy McQueen; Jasmin A Tiro; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  The impact of level of education on adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

7.  Self-sampling experiences among non-attendees to cervical screening.

Authors:  Anni Virtanen; Pekka Nieminen; Meri Niironen; Tapio Luostarinen; Ahti Anttila
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-sampling compared to physician-taken smear in a responder population of the Dutch cervical screening: Results of the VERA study.

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

9.  Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Sara B Smith; Sarah Temin; Farhana Sultana; Philip Castle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-05

10.  Women's experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing.

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

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cervical Cancer Prevention and High-Risk HPV Self-Sampling Awareness and Acceptability among Women Living with HIV: A Qualitative Investigation from the Patients' and Providers' Perspectives.

Authors:  Daisy Le; Annie Coriolan Ciceron; Min Jeong Jeon; Laura Isabel Gonzalez; Jeanne A Jordan; Jose Bordon; Beverly Long
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.