Literature DB >> 34002407

Perspectives on self-sampling for cancer screening among rural and urban women: Multilevel factors related to acceptability.

Kelsey C Stoltzfus1, Madyson L Popalis1, Paul L Reiter2, Jennifer L Moss1,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Self-sampling tests may be used to overcome barriers to screening that are more prevalent in rural populations compared to urban populations. This study aims to qualitatively examine the attitudes toward established and novel self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer among women, comparing themes from rural versus urban areas.
METHODS: We recruited women (ages 45-65) from 28 counties in Pennsylvania. Four focus groups were conducted with women from metropolitan counties, and 7 focus groups were conducted with women from nonmetropolitan counties. A brief survey was conducted prior to the focus group regarding general health and willingness to complete self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer.
FINDINGS: We identified 3 themes about the potential for self-sampling for cancer screening: advantages and disadvantages of self-sampling compared to traditional testing, impact of self-sampling on patient interactions with their health care providers/clinics, and implications for improving/worsening access to quality health care services. We detected differences in responses from rural versus urban participants in the potential impact of self-sampling for cancer screening.
CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that influence the feasibility of implementing self-sampling for cancer screening in routine clinical practice. Rural participants face unique barriers to cancer screening across all levels. These findings can be used to guide interventions aimed at increasing the use of self-sampling methods.
© 2021 National Rural Health Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cervical cancer; colorectal cancer; screening; self-sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34002407      PMCID: PMC8599503          DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rural Health        ISSN: 0890-765X            Impact factor:   4.333


  23 in total

Review 1.  Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.

Authors:  Mojtaba Vaismoradi; Hannele Turunen; Terese Bondas
Journal:  Nurs Health Sci       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 1.857

2.  Effects of an Education Intervention about HPV Self-Testing for Healthcare Providers and Staff.

Authors:  Brynne E Presser; Mira L Katz; Abigail B Shoben; Deborah Moore; Mack T Ruffin; Electra D Paskett; Paul L Reiter
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening.

Authors:  Remko P Bosgraaf; Viola M J Verhoef; Leon F A G Massuger; Albert G Siebers; Johan Bulten; Gabriëlle M de Kuyper-de Ridder; Chris J M Meijer; Peter J F Snijders; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Joanna IntHout; Folkert J van Kemenade; Willem J G Melchers; Ruud L M Bekkers
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hongmei Wang; Shreya Roy; Jungyoon Kim; Paraskevi A Farazi; Mohammad Siahpush; Dejun Su
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 1.759

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of faecal biomarkers in detecting colorectal cancer and adenoma in symptomatic patients.

Authors:  M M Widlak; C L Thomas; M G Thomas; C Tomkins; S Smith; N O'Connell; S Wurie; L Burns; C Harmston; C Evans; C U Nwokolo; B Singh; R P Arasaradnam
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 8.171

Review 7.  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

8.  Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Allison E Anderson; Kevin A Henry; N Jewel Samadder; Ray M Merrill; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ann C DeBourcy; Scott Lichtenberger; Susanne Felton; Kiel T Butterfield; Dennis J Ahnen; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research: Results of Qualitative Interviews With Focus Group Moderators.

Authors:  Anja P Tausch; Natalja Menold
Journal:  Glob Qual Nurs Res       Date:  2016-03-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.