Ana Isabel Caleia1, Catarina Pires1, Jacinta de Fátima Pereira1, Filipa Pinto-Ribeiro1, Adhemar Longatto-Filho2,3,4,5. 1. Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. 2. Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, longatto@med.uminho.pt. 3. ICVS/3B's-PT Government Associate Laboratory, Guimarães, Portugal, longatto@med.uminho.pt. 4. Molecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil, longatto@med.uminho.pt. 5. Laboratory of Medical Investigation (LIM-14), School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, longatto@med.uminho.pt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world. A raised incidence and mortality parallel a low participation rate in screening, namely screening in poor countries and among specific populations of developed countries. Cervical or vaginal self-sampling may increase adherence to screening due to its low costs and elevated sensibility and specificity. Our main goal was to compare self-sampling with physician sampling and to evaluate the participation rate of women formerly non-adherent to cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: We identified relevant studies from PubMed. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled the following criteria: women aged between 16 and 80 years, poor and developed countries that use self-sampling, women with a low participation rate in screening and studies published since 2013. After fully reading the articles, data were extracted to an Excel sheet to -display all relevant information in an organized manner. - Results: We identified 18 studies, which altogether enrolled 22,118 women. Self-sampling and physician sampling are quite similar regarding the HPV detection rate. Women have a low participation rate mainly because of limited access to health services, religious and culture beliefs, and lack of time due to several demanding tasks in daily life. Self-sampling shows a significant increase in acceptability and preference compared to physician sampling. CONCLUSION: Self-sampling is a reliable method to involve women in opportunistic or organized screening programs for cervical cancer prevention.
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world. A raised incidence and mortality parallel a low participation rate in screening, namely screening in poor countries and among specific populations of developed countries. Cervical or vaginal self-sampling may increase adherence to screening due to its low costs and elevated sensibility and specificity. Our main goal was to compare self-sampling with physician sampling and to evaluate the participation rate of women formerly non-adherent to cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: We identified relevant studies from PubMed. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled the following criteria: women aged between 16 and 80 years, poor and developed countries that use self-sampling, women with a low participation rate in screening and studies published since 2013. After fully reading the articles, data were extracted to an Excel sheet to -display all relevant information in an organized manner. - Results: We identified 18 studies, which altogether enrolled 22,118 women. Self-sampling and physician sampling are quite similar regarding the HPV detection rate. Women have a low participation rate mainly because of limited access to health services, religious and culture beliefs, and lack of time due to several demanding tasks in daily life. Self-sampling shows a significant increase in acceptability and preference compared to physician sampling. CONCLUSION: Self-sampling is a reliable method to involve women in opportunistic or organized screening programs for cervical cancer prevention.