Literature DB >> 32489266

HPV sampling options for cervical cancer screening: preferences of urban-dwelling Canadians in a changing paradigm.

G D Datta1, M H Mayrand1, S Qureshi1, N Ferre1, L Gauvin1.   

Abstract

Introduction: Of women in Canada diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, 50% have not been screened according to guidelines. Interventions involving self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (hpv) screening could be an avenue to increase uptake. To guide the development of cervical cancer screening interventions, we assessed ■ preferred sample collection options,■ sampling preferences according to previous screening behaviours, and■ preference for self-sampling among women not screened according to guidelines, as a function of their reasons for not being screened.
Methods: Data were collected in an online survey (Montreal, Quebec; 2016) and included information from female participants between the ages of 21 and 65 years who had not undergone hysterectomy and who had provided answers to survey questions about screening history, screening interval, and screening preferences (n = 526, weighted n = 574,392).
Results: In weighted analyses, 68% of all women surveyed and 82% of women not recently screened preferred screening by self-sampling. Among women born outside of Canada, the United States, or Europe, preference ranged from 47% to 60%. Nearly all women (95%-100%) who reported fear or embarrassment, dislike of undergoing a Pap test, or lack of time or geography-related availability of screening as one of their reasons for not being screened stated a preference for undergoing screening by self-sampling. Conclusions: The results demonstrate a strong preference for self-sampling among never-screened and not-recently-screened women, and provides initial evidence for policymakers and researchers to address how best to integrate self-sampling hpv screening into both organized and opportunistic screening contexts. 2020 Multimed Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; hpv; self-sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32489266      PMCID: PMC7253748          DOI: 10.3747/co.27.5089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  35 in total

Review 1.  Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  F Verdoodt; M Jentschke; P Hillemanns; C S Racey; P J F Snijders; M Arbyn
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Home-based HPV self-sampling improves participation by never-screened and under-screened women: Results from a large randomized trial (iPap) in Australia.

Authors:  Farhana Sultana; Dallas R English; Julie A Simpson; Kelly T Drennan; Robyn Mullins; Julia M L Brotherton; C David Wrede; Stella Heley; Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Inadequacy of cervical cancer screening among urban recent immigrants: a population-based study of physician and laboratory claims in Toronto, Canada.

Authors:  Aisha Lofters; Richard H Glazier; Mohammad M Agha; Maria I Creatore; Rahim Moineddin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Freija Verdoodt; Peter J F Snijders; Viola M J Verhoef; Eero Suonio; Lena Dillner; Silvia Minozzi; Cristina Bellisario; Rita Banzi; Fang-Hui Zhao; Peter Hillemanns; Ahti Anttila
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Feasibility of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus testing in hard-to-reach women.

Authors:  Gina Ogilvie; Mel Krajden; Juanita Maginley; Judy Isaac-Renton; Greg Hislop; Ruth Elwood-Martin; Chris Sherlock; Darlene Taylor; Michael Rekart
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-08-28       Impact factor: 8.262

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.  Impact of an educational intervention on women's knowledge and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling: a randomized controlled trial in Cameroon.

Authors:  Gaëtan Sossauer; Michel Zbinden; Pierre-Marie Tebeu; Gisèle K Fosso; Sarah Untiet; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  'It has saved thousands of lives, so why change it?' Content analysis of objections to cervical screening programme changes in Australia.

Authors:  Helena M Obermair; Rachael H Dodd; Carissa Bonner; Jesse Jansen; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.