IMPORTANCEEvidence is needed regarding the introduction of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing into China's national cervical cancer screening program.OBJECTIVE To evaluate hrHPV testing as a new screening modality for the national program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial took place across 20 primary health care centers in urban and rural areas across China. At least 3000 women aged 35 to 64 years per site were invited to participate, for a total of 60 732 women evaluated.INTERVENTIONS At baseline, women were randomly assigned to cytology, hrHPV testing, or visual inspection with acetic acid and Lugol iodine (VIA/VILI) (rural only). Women who tested positive for hrHPV were randomized into cytology-triage, VIA/VILI-triage (rural only), or direct colposcopy arms. Regarding primary or triaging tests, women with cytological abnormalities or who tested positive with VIA/VILI were referred to colposcopy. After 24 months, combined screening of cytology, hrHPV testing, and VIA/VILI was performed, and all women with positive results were referred to colposcopy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+ yields. The secondary outcome was colposcopy referral rate.RESULTS A total of 60 732 women were included in this study, with median (interquartile range) age of 47 (41-52) years. Among urban women, 8955 were randomized to cytology and 18 176 to hrHPV genotyping; among rural women, 11 136 were randomized to VIA/VILI, 7080 to cytology, and 15 385 to hrHPV testing. Participants who tested positive for hrHPV with direct colposcopy had higher risk ratios for disease yields at baseline (urban hrHPV vs cytology, CIN2+ 2.2 [95% CI, 1.6-3.2] and CIN3+ 2.0 [95% CI, 1.2-3.3]; rural hrHPV vs cytology, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.9-4.0] and 2.7 [95% CI, 2.0-3.6]; rural hrHPV vs VIA/VILI, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.6-2.3] and 2.3 [95% CI, 1.8-3.1]). At 24 months, baseline-negative women in the hrHPV arm had significantly lower risk ratios than those with cytology, or VIA/VILI for CIN2+ (0.3 [95% CI, 0.2-0.5], 0.3 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and CIN3+ (0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6], 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.8]) in rural sites. The colposcopy referral rate for hrHPV-positive rural women was reduced to 2.8% by cytology triage, with significantly higher CIN2+ yields than cytology (2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-2.6]) or VIA/VILI arm (1.6 [95% CI, 1.03-2.1]). Genotyping for hrHPV with cytology triage significantly reduced the colposcopy referral rate compared with cytology (0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]) for urban women. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, testing for hrHPV was an effective primary screening method in primary health care centers. Incorporating hrHPV testing (polymerase chain reaction-based for urban areas, hybrid capture-based for rural areas) into China's national screening program is reasonable.

COVID-19 vaccines, as one of the effective ways of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, can lower COVID-19 risk and protect against severe disease and death; however, substantial individual differences in vaccination intentions have hindered the realization of a high vaccination rate among the public. To look for efficient strategies to promote vaccination, this study tested whether the protection motivation theory (PMT), a cognitive model based upon threat and coping appraisals, would account for the differences in vaccination intentions under three scenarios (i.e., vaccines in general and with high- or low- efficacy of lowering the risk of developing COVID-19). A phone survey was conducted in early 2021 and obtained a probability community sample (n = 472; 49.2% men) in Macao, China. We found that 54.0% of respondents indicated their relatively strong intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination for high-efficacy vaccines, compared to 29.5% for low-efficacy vaccines and 31.0% for vaccines in general. After controlling for demographics, self-efficacy (i.e., the perceived capability of receiving COVID-19 vaccines) and maladaptive response reward (i.e., the perceived benefits of not receiving COVID-19 vaccines) were consistently associated with COVID-19 vaccination intentions under all three scenarios. The perceived severity of COVID-19 infection and response cost of COVID-19 vaccination were significantly associated with vaccination intention for high-efficacy vaccines, while the response efficacy of lowering the COVID-19 impact with COVID-19 vaccination was positively associated with vaccination intention for general and low-efficacy vaccines. Given that the relative strength of PMT constructs depends on perceived vaccine efficacy, we recommend taking PMT constructs and vaccine efficacy into account for encouraging vaccination.

No abstract

The main objective of this work is to determine the performance of urine for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in cervical cancer screening in screening population. Paired urine and cervical samples were collected from 2038 women (careHPV group: 1002, cobas4800 group: 1036) in 2015. Urine was tested by a new urine‐based HPV test and cervical samples by careHPV or cobas4800 HPV test. Women were triaged based on cervical results and then referred to colposcopy with biopsy as clinically indicated. In 2017, women were followed up and screened with cotesting strategy, women with any positive would be referred and biopsied if necessary. In careHPV group, the HPV prevalence of urine was 14.1%, and 16.4% for cervical samples. In cobas4800 group, it was 19.1% and 20.4%, correspondingly. The concordance of urine samples compared with cervical samples was moderate (careHPV group: 86.6%; κ = 0.48; cobas4800 group: 83%; κ = 0.46). The baseline sensitivity and specificity for urine against CIN2+  detection were 85.7%, 86.8% in careHPV group, and 69.2%, 82.3% in cobas4800 group, respectively. Cervical samples were 100% sensitive for both tests (careHPV and cobas4800) and 85.2% specific in careHPV group and 81.9% specific in cobas4800 group, respectively. The corresponding cumulative sensitivity and specificity were 68.8% and 87.1%, 58.8% and 81.9%, 87.5% and 85.5%, and 94.1% and 81.4%. Urine demonstrated certain potential in cervical cancer screening and could be an alternative if no better screening strategies available.