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.
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.
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
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
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
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: 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