As human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling continues to emerge as a potential cervical cancer screening strategy in the United States, it is necessary to examine women's acceptability of this screening approach. Furthermore, since several HPV self-sampling devices exist, it is important to determine if women's preferences differ by device type. We conducted an online survey in Fall 2017 with a national sample of women ( n = 605) ages 21–65 years (the recommended age range for cervical cancer screening). Multivariable linear regression identified correlates of women's willingness to use an HPV self-sample at home. We used repeated measures analysis of variance to determine if preferences differed across four self-sampling devices: Evalyn ® Brush (Device A), HerSwab ® (Device B), Catch-All ® Swab (Device C), and Qvintip ® (Device D). Most women were willing to use an HPV self-sample at home (mean = 4.03 [possible range: 1–5], standard deviation = 1.09, 72.7% indicated “probably willing” or “definitely willing”). The most common concerns about self-sampling were related to test accuracy (53.1%) and obtaining the sample incorrectly (51.1%). Women were more willing to use an HPV self-sample at home if they reported greater perceived severity of cervical cancer ( β = 0.16), reported an annual income less than $50,000 ( β = 0.13), or were a former smoker ( β = 0.11). Women were more willing to use Device A (mean = 3.72, 67.6% indicated “agree” or “strongly agree”), Device C (mean = 3.86, 73.9% indicated “agree” or “strongly agree”), and Device D (mean = 3.81, 72.1% indicated “agree” or “strongly agree”) than Device B (mean = 3.36, 49.4% indicated “agree” or “strongly agree”; all p < 0.05). Acceptability of HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening strategy is generally high among women. Future efforts should consider the potential impact that device type may have on women's use of an HPV self-sample at home.
Introduction:Project Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO) was originally developed by the University of New Mexico’s Health Science Center (UNMHSC) to build the capacities of primary-care providers and to increase specialty-care access to rural and underserved populations. ECHO Colorado, a replication site at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CUAMC), was developed with the same purpose and to help build the health workforce of Colorado. The CUAMC and its community-based partners recognized that by reducing unnecessary referrals to the medical campus and building primary-care capacity in communities, both would increase their scope and expand overall capacity. This study examines the key factors that influence participant engagement, how participants value the ECHO experience, and the utility of the ECHO Colorado experience according to participants.Methods:This study used a mixed-methods approach including 42 interviews and 34 completed surveys. Transcribed interview recordings were coded in NVivo 11, and codes were queried in NVivo and Excel to identify key themes. Survey responses were analyzed in SPSS. Data were examined between and across four attendance groups and triangulated to assess the reliability of the data and validity of overall findings.Findings:Key factors increasing registrant engagement included relevant and practical curriculum content; strong and supportive relationships among learners, ECHO faculty, and workplace colleagues; and innovative learning approaches that included opportunities for active, virtual participation through technology, participant management activities, and ECHO’s unique curriculum design.Conclusion:Findings from this study validated many of the important elements of ECHO Colorado that make it unique from other iterations of the model being implemented nationally and internationally and identified participant-driven strategies for further amplifying its impact.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.