Preference for Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection and Papanicolaou: Survey of Underscreened Women in North Carolina

Kilfoyle, Kimberly A.; Marais, Andrea C. Des; Ngo, Mai Anh; Romocki, LaHoma Smith; Richman, Alice R.; Brewer, Noel T.; Rahangdale, Lisa; Smith, Jennifer S.

doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000430

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 26 27 29 35–37 39 40 43 46 52 54 57 59 61–64 66 70 83 87 89 91 93 95 96 Furthermore, one study acknowledged that participants self-selected to participate with the knowledge that self-collection would be a critical component of the study, so there may have been some selection bias towards acceptability of the self-test. 43 One study assessed test–retest reliability and content validity of acceptability measures, 64 but psychometric properties of acceptability were not conducted consistently across studies. Thirty-two articles reported that their results were not transferable to the study population or entire geographic population.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…35 3642 43 52 54 56 58 59 62 65 68 69 71 74 77-86 88 89 91-93 95 The most frequently cited reasons for preferring self-sampling over clinician sampling were less pain or physical discomfort, 29 31 32 34-37 39 43 44 52 57 58 65 70 71 73 77-80 86 88-91 93-95 ease of use, convenience, ability to perform the test in private 28 29 31-33 36 39 42 46 52 57 59 62 74 77 81 89 90 94 and less embarrassment or anxiety. 27 28 31 33 35 37 39 40 46 52 59 65 69 70 72 73 77-80 89-91…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe WHO recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical self-sampling as an additional screening method and HPV DNA testing as an effective approach for the early detection of cervical cancer for women aged ≥30 years. This systematic review assesses end user’s values and preferences related to HPV self-sampling.MethodsWe searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Embase) using search terms for HPV and self-sampling to identify articles meeting inclusion criteria. A standardised data extraction form was used to capture study setting, population, sample size and results related to values and preferences.ResultsOf 1858 records retrieved, 72 studies among 52 114 participants published between 2002 and 2018 were included in this review. Almost all studies were cross-sectional surveys. Study populations included end users who were mainly adolescent girls and adult women. Ages ranged from 14 to 80 years. Most studies (57%) were conducted in high-income countries. Women generally found HPV self-sampling highly acceptable regardless of age, income or country of residence. Lack of self-confidence with collecting a reliable sample was the most commonly cited reason for preferring clinician-collected samples. Most women preferred home-based self-sampling to self-sampling at a clinic. The cervical swab was the most common and most accepted HPV DNA sampling device.ConclusionsHPV self-sampling is generally a highly accepted method of cervical cancer screening for end users globally. End user preferences for self-sampling device, method and setting can inform the development of new and expanded interventions to increase HPV screening.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various study designs were used to elicit this preference, including 15 cross-sectional survey studies (35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49) (56), and one mixed methods study (57).…”

Section: Screening Modality (N ¼ 23)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All non-focus group studies reported the percentage of participants who preferred the HPV self-test to the Pap test (35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(54)(55)(56)(57). Percentages ranged from 10% (45) to over 90% (54).…”

Section: Screening Modality (N ¼ 23)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review

Biddell

OʼLeary

Wheeler

et al. 2020

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underutilization of effective screening is one driver of disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Consideration of patient preferences could help to improve screening rates in populations facing substantial barriers to preventive care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved patients in the United States. We searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for articles published through February 2019 (Prospero ID: CRD42019125431). Among the 43 articles included, 23 reported screening modality preferences, 11 reported preferences related to provider demographics and attributes, six reported screening scheduling and results delivery preferences, and nine reported preferences related to health education and communication. This review demonstrates the wide variety of medically underserved patient preferences related to cervical cancer screening. It also draws attention to two key preference trends that emerged despite heterogeneity in study design, populations, and preference assessment. Consistent preferences for human papillomavirus self-testing over traditional Pap testing highlight a key potential mechanism for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake among medically underserved populations. In addition, preferences for gender-and language-concordant providers underscore the need for continued efforts toward expanding diversity among medical professionals.

show abstract

Technical note: Low clinical efficacy, but good acceptability of a point‐of‐care electronic palpation device for breast cancer screening for a lower middle‐income environment

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Late‐stage breast cancer rates in the Pacific where mammography services are limited are exceedingly high: Marshall Islands (61%), Palau (94%), and Samoa (79%). Due to the limited medical resources in these areas an alternative accessible technology is needed. The iBreast Exam (iBE) is a point‐of‐care electronic palpitation device that has a reported sensitivity of 86%. However, little is known about the performance and acceptability of this device for women in the Pacific. Methods A total of 39 women (ages 42–73 years) were recruited in Guam with 19 women having a mammogram requiring biopsy (Breast Imaging‐Reporting and Data System [BI‐RADS] category 4 or above) and 20 women with a negative screening mammogram before the study visit. Participants received an iBE exam and completed a 26‐item breast health questionnaire to evaluate the iBE. Furthermore, the performance characteristics of the iBE were tested using gelatin breast phantoms in terms of tumor size, tumor depth, and overall breast stiffness. Results The iBE had a sensitivity of 20% (two true positives to eight false negatives) and specificity of 92% (24 false positives to 278 true negatives) when analyzed based on the location of the tumor by quadrant. The iBE also had generally poor agreement according to a Cohen's kappa value of 0.068. The phantom experiments showed that the iBE can detect tumors as deep as 2.5 cm, but only if the lesion is greater than 8 mm in diameter. However, the iBE did demonstrate acceptability; 67% of the women reported that they had high trust in iBE as an early detection device. Conclusions The iBE had generally poor sensitivity and specificity when tested in a clinical setting which does not allow its use as a screening tool. Impact This study demonstrates the need for an alternative screening method other than electronic palpation for lower‐middle‐income areas.

show abstract

Preference for Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection and Papanicolaou: Survey of Underscreened Women in North Carolina

Abstract: Overall positive attitudes toward HPV self-collection compared with Pap testing among underscreened women suggest that self-collection is a promising option to increase cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.

Cited by 16 publications

References 24 publications

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review

Technical note: Low clinical efficacy, but good acceptability of a point‐of‐care electronic palpation device for breast cancer screening for a lower middle‐income environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About