Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015
Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Racey C Sarai, Gesink Dionne C, Burchell Ann N, Trivers Suzanne, Wong Tom, Rebbapragada Anu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if cervical cancer screening uptake would increase among under-screened women living in rural Ontario, Canada, if at-home self-collected sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was offered as a primary cervical cancer screening modality, compared to invited papanicolaou (Pap) testing or routine opportunistic screening.
METHODS: Women 30-70 years of age who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomized to receive (1) an at-home self-collected HPV kit, (2) a reminder invitation for Pap testing, or (3) standard of care opportunistic screening. The first two arms were also asked demographic and screening history questions. Women randomized to arm 1 were asked about acceptability.
RESULTS: In total, 818 eligible women were identified in a small rural community in Southwestern Ontario: 335 received a self-collected HPV testing kit, 331 received a reminder letter, and 152 received standard of care. In the HPV self-collection arm, 21% (70/335) returned the sample and questionnaire and 11% (37/335) opted to undergo Pap testing. In total, 32% from the HPV self-collection arm, 15% (51/331) from the Pap invitation arm, and 8.5% (13/152) with standard of care were screened. Women receiving the self-collected HPV kit were 3.7 (95% confidence interval 2.2-6.4) times more likely to undergo screening compared to the standard of care arm. In the HPV self-sampling arm, 80% (56/70) said they would be very likely to choose self-collected sampling in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing self-collected sampling for HPV testing was more effective than sending reminder letters to increase screening coverage in under-screened women.
METHODS: Women 30-70 years of age who were overdue for cervical cancer screening were randomized to receive (1) an at-home self-collected HPV kit, (2) a reminder invitation for Pap testing, or (3) standard of care opportunistic screening. The first two arms were also asked demographic and screening history questions. Women randomized to arm 1 were asked about acceptability.
RESULTS: In total, 818 eligible women were identified in a small rural community in Southwestern Ontario: 335 received a self-collected HPV testing kit, 331 received a reminder letter, and 152 received standard of care. In the HPV self-collection arm, 21% (70/335) returned the sample and questionnaire and 11% (37/335) opted to undergo Pap testing. In total, 32% from the HPV self-collection arm, 15% (51/331) from the Pap invitation arm, and 8.5% (13/152) with standard of care were screened. Women receiving the self-collected HPV kit were 3.7 (95% confidence interval 2.2-6.4) times more likely to undergo screening compared to the standard of care arm. In the HPV self-sampling arm, 80% (56/70) said they would be very likely to choose self-collected sampling in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing self-collected sampling for HPV testing was more effective than sending reminder letters to increase screening coverage in under-screened women.