Eliane Rohner1, F Hunter McGuire2, Yutong Liu3, Quefeng Li3, Kate Miele4, Samveg A Desai3, John W Schmitt5, Andrea Knittel4, Julie A E Nelson6, Claire Edelman5, Vijay Sivaraman7, Anna Baker1, LaHoma S Romocki8, Lisa Rahangdale4,9, Jennifer S Smith1,9. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Public Health Education, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina. 9. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
Background: We compared women's acceptability of urine and cervico-vaginal sample self-collection for high-risk (oncogenic) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and assessed whether acceptability varied across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: As part of a test accuracy study of urine-based hrHPV testing, we recruited a convenience sample of women 25-65 years of age at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. After self-collection of urine and cervico-vaginal samples, women completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the sample collection methods. We coded open-ended questions inductively. All results are presented stratified by racial/ethnic group. Results: We included 410 women (119 Hispanic, 115 non-Hispanic Black, 154 non-Hispanic White, and 22 women with other racial identities). Most women (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 76%-83%) had positive feelings about urine-based hrHPV testing. Women generally preferred urine (78%, 95% CI = 74%-82%) over cervico-vaginal self-collection (18%, 95% CI = 14%-22%), but the degree differed by racial/ethnic group, increasing from 75% in non-Hispanic Black to 82% in Hispanic women (p = 0.011). Most women reported at least one positive aspect of urine (89%) and cervico-vaginal self-collection (85%) for hrHPV testing with the most common positive aspect being easy sample collection, although 16% of women were concerned about performing the cervico-vaginal self-collection correctly. Conclusions: Self-collection for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to women across different racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and most women in our study would be more likely to attend future cervical cancer screening appointments if screening were urine based. Urine-based hrHPV testing is a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage.
Background: We compared women's acceptability of urine and cervico-vaginal sample self-collection for high-risk (oncogenic) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and assessed whether acceptability varied across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: As part of a test accuracy study of urine-based hrHPV testing, we recruited a convenience sample of women 25-65 years of age at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. After self-collection of urine and cervico-vaginal samples, women completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the sample collection methods. We coded open-ended questions inductively. All results are presented stratified by racial/ethnic group. Results: We included 410 women (119 Hispanic, 115 non-Hispanic Black, 154 non-Hispanic White, and 22 women with other racial identities). Most women (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 76%-83%) had positive feelings about urine-based hrHPV testing. Women generally preferred urine (78%, 95% CI = 74%-82%) over cervico-vaginal self-collection (18%, 95% CI = 14%-22%), but the degree differed by racial/ethnic group, increasing from 75% in non-Hispanic Black to 82% in Hispanic women (p = 0.011). Most women reported at least one positive aspect of urine (89%) and cervico-vaginal self-collection (85%) for hrHPV testing with the most common positive aspect being easy sample collection, although 16% of women were concerned about performing the cervico-vaginal self-collection correctly. Conclusions: Self-collection for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to women across different racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and most women in our study would be more likely to attend future cervical cancer screening appointments if screening were urine based. Urine-based hrHPV testing is a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage.
Entities:
Keywords:
HPV testing; acceptability; cervical cancer screening; self-collection; urine
Authors: Laura W Musselwhite; Cristina M Oliveira; Tendai Kwaramba; Naitielle de Paula Pantano; Jennifer S Smith; José Humberto Fregnani; Rui M Reis; Edmundo Mauad; Fabiana de Lima Vazquez; Adhemar Longatto-Filho Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.319
Authors: J W Sellors; A T Lorincz; J B Mahony; I Mielzynska; A Lytwyn; P Roth; M Howard; S Chong; D Daya; W Chapman; M Chernesky Journal: CMAJ Date: 2000-09-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sandi L Pruitt; Claudia L Werner; Eric K Borton; Joanne M Sanders; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Arti Barnes; Andrea C Betts; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A Leeman; M Del Pino; A Molijn; A Rodriguez; A Torné; M de Koning; J Ordi; F van Kemenade; D Jenkins; W Quint Journal: BJOG Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Carole Lunny; Darlene Taylor; Linda Hoang; Tom Wong; Mark Gilbert; Richard Lester; Mel Krajden; Gina Ogilvie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eliane Rohner; Claire Edelman; Busola Sanusi; John W Schmitt; Anna Baker; Kirsty Chesko; Brian Faherty; Sean M Gregory; LaHoma S Romocki; Vijay Sivaraman; Julie A E Nelson; Siobhan O'Connor; Michael G Hudgens; Andrea K Knittel; Lisa Rahangdale; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Laura Téblick; Severien Van Keer; Annemie De Smet; Pierre Van Damme; Michelle Laeremans; Alejandra Rios Cortes; Koen Beyers; Vanessa Vankerckhoven; Veerle Matheeussen; Renee Mandersloot; Arno Floore; Chris J L M Meijer; Renske D M Steenbergen; Alex Vorsters Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.411
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