Self-Collected Human Papillomavirus Testing Acceptability: Comparison of Two Self-Sampling Modalities

被引:45
|
作者
Igidbashian, Sarah [1 ]
Boveri, Sara [1 ]
Spolti, Noemi [1 ]
Radice, Davide [2 ]
Sandri, Maria Teresa [3 ]
Sideri, Mario [1 ]
机构
[1] European Inst Oncol, Prevent Gynaecol Unit, I-20141 Milan, Italy
[2] European Inst Oncol, Div Epidemiol & Biostat, I-20141 Milan, Italy
[3] European Inst Oncol, Lab Med Unit, I-20141 Milan, Italy
关键词
INVASIVE CERVICAL-CARCINOMA; CANCER; WOMEN; DNA; SPECIMENS; MORTALITY; HISTORY; METAANALYSIS; NETHERLANDS; CONCORDANCE;
D O I
10.1089/jwh.2010.2189
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be used as a primary test for cervical cancer screening. HPV self-sampling has the potential to replace physician/nurse sampling. Our objective was to compare the acceptability of two self-sampling methods among 205 women undergoing an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO). Methods: One hundred eleven patients were given a Hybrid Capture (HC) Cervical Sampler (TM) (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and 94 received a self-lavaging device, the Delphi (R) Screener (Delphi Bioscience, Scherpenzeel, The Netherlands), both with written instructions. Self-sampling was performed just before the clinician-collected cervical sample. Women responded to questions using 5-point ordinal scales on the general acceptability of self-sampling and the physical comfort, embarrassment, pain, and difficulty experienced. Participants were also asked whether they prefer self-sampling or clinician sampling. Results: Both self-sampling methods were generally accepted with a significantly high score (p = 0.005) and significantly lower embarrassment (p = 0.042) in favor of the Delphi Screener. Both self-sampling methods were physically well accepted, not painful, and easy to perform. Most women (n = 117, 68%) preferred the self-sampled compared to the clinician-sampled test, with a significantly higher proportion in the Delphi Screener group (n = 59, 77.6%) compared to those using the HC Sampler (n = 58, 60.4%) (p = 0.021). Conclusions: The present study shows that self-sampling for HPV testing is favorably received by women. A sampling device specifically developed for self-sampling, such as the Delphi Screener, shows the highest degree of satisfaction. A well-accepted HPV sampling method could be especially useful for women who do not take part in cervical screening or in settings where organized screening is not fully implemented.
引用
收藏
页码:397 / 402
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Women's experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing
    Sultana, Farhana
    Mullins, Robyn
    English, Dallas R.
    Simpson, Julie A.
    Drennan, Kelly T.
    Heley, Stella
    Wrede, C. David
    Brotherton, Julia M. L.
    Saville, Marion
    Gertig, Dorota M.
    [J]. BMC CANCER, 2015, 15
  • [42] Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yeh, Ping Teresa
    Kennedy, Caitlin E.
    de Vuyst, Hugo
    Narasimhan, Manjulaa
    [J]. BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 4 (03):
  • [43] Women’s experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing
    Farhana Sultana
    Robyn Mullins
    Dallas R. English
    Julie A. Simpson
    Kelly T. Drennan
    Stella Heley
    C. David Wrede
    Julia M. L. Brotherton
    Marion Saville
    Dorota M. Gertig
    [J]. BMC Cancer, 15
  • [44] Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis
    Arbyn, Marc
    Verdoodt, Freija
    Snijders, Peter J. F.
    Verhoef, Viola M. J.
    Suonio, Eero
    Dillner, Lena
    Minozzi, Silvia
    Bellisario, Cristina
    Banzi, Rita
    Zhao, Fang-Hui
    Hillemanns, Peter
    Anttila, Ahti
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2014, 15 (02): : 172 - 183
  • [45] A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1
    Cadman, Louise
    Reuter, Caroline
    Jitlal, Mark
    Kleeman, Michelle
    Austin, Janet
    Hollingworth, Tony
    Parberry, Anna L.
    Ashdown-Barr, Lesley
    Patel, Deepali
    Nedjai, Belinda
    Lorincz, Attila T.
    Cuzick, Jack
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2021, 30 (04) : 661 - 668
  • [46] A qualitative assessment of the acceptability of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling and informational materials among diverse populations
    Petrik, Amanda
    Rivelli, Jennifer
    Firemark, Allison
    Johnson, Cheryl
    Locher, Blake
    Gille, Sara
    Schneider, Jennifer
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2024, 33 (09)
  • [47] Acceptability of self-collected versus provider-collected sampling for HPV DNA testing among women in rural El Salvador
    Rosenbaum, Alan J.
    Gage, Julia C.
    Alfaro, Karla M.
    Ditzian, Lauren R.
    Maza, Mauricio
    Scarinci, Isabel C.
    Felix, Juan C.
    Castle, Philip E.
    Villalta, Sofia
    Miranda, Esmeralda
    Cremer, Miriam L.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2014, 126 (02) : 156 - 160
  • [48] Influence of resuspension volume on dry sampling devices taken for human papillomavirus testing: implications for self-sampling
    Connor, Linzi
    Elasifer, Hana
    Sargent, Alex
    Bhatia, Ramya
    Graham, Catriona
    Cuschieri, Kate
    [J]. BIOTECHNIQUES, 2023, 74 (02) : 77 - 84
  • [49] Community Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus by Self-Collected Samples in South India
    Peedicayil, A.
    Abraham, P.
    Prasad, J.
    Jeyaseelan, L.
    Abraham, S.
    Kurian, S.
    Gravitt, P.
    Shah, K. V.
    [J]. INDIAN JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2016, 14 (01)
  • [50] Comparison of urine and self-collected vaginal samples for detecting human papillomavirus DNA in pregnant women
    Franciscatto, Laura G.
    Silva, Claudia M. D.
    Barcellos, Regina B.
    Angeli, Suelen
    Silva, Marcia S. N.
    Almeida, Sabrina E. M.
    Rossetti, Maria L. R.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2014, 125 (01) : 69 - 72