Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador

被引:4
|
作者
Vega Crespo, Bernardo [1 ]
Alejandra Neira, Vivian [1 ,2 ]
Ortiz, Jose S. [1 ]
Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth [3 ,4 ]
Lopez, Diana [2 ]
Gomez, Andrea [1 ]
Jose Vicuna, Maria [1 ]
Mejia, Jorge [1 ]
Benoy, Ina [5 ]
Parron Carreno, Tesifon [6 ]
Verhoeven, Veronique [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cuenca, Fac Ciencias Med, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador
[2] Univ Azuay UDA, Fac Med, Cuenca 010104, Ecuador
[3] Univ Tecn Particular Loja UTPL Loja Ecuador, Fac Ciencias Salud, Loja 1101608, Ecuador
[4] Univ La Frontera UFRO, Programa Doctorado Ciencias Morfol, Temuco 4811230, Chile
[5] Univ Antwerp, Lab Cell Biol & Histol, AMBIOR, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium
[6] Univ Almeria UAL, Fac Ciencias Salud & Neurociencias, Almeria 04120, Spain
[7] Univ Antwerp, Family Med & Populat Hlth, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
HPV; self-sampling; urine sampling; vaginal sampling; clinician sampling; acceptability; HPV DNA; WOMEN; COVID-19; IMPACT;
D O I
10.3390/healthcare10091614
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67-52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79-40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44-18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83-65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03-0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0-0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07-0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01-0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71-9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] HPV prevalence and acceptability of HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening in the community of Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala
    Gottschlich, Anna
    Meza, Rafael
    -Andrade, Alvaro Rivera
    Grajeda, Edwin
    Alvarez, Christian
    Montano, Carlos Mendoza
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [22] Comparison between professional sampling and self-sampling for HPV-based cervical cancer screening among postmenopausal women
    Bergengren, Lovisa
    Kaliff, Malin
    Larsson, Gabriella L.
    Karlsson, Mats G.
    Helenius, Gisela
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2018, 142 (03) : 359 - 364
  • [23] Mexican cervical cancer screening study II: Acceptability of a new self-sampling device
    Nieves-Arriba, L.
    Enerson, C.
    Belinson, S.
    Booth, C.
    Brainard, J.
    Chiesa-Vottero, A.
    Perez, A.
    Sun, Z.
    Novick, L.
    Belinson, J.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2010, 116 (03) : S18 - S19
  • [24] Acceptability of Self-Sampling HPV Testing Among Thai Women for Cervical Cancer Screening
    Oranratanaphan, Shina
    Termrungruanglert, Wichai
    Khemapech, Nipon
    ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2014, 15 (17) : 7437 - 7441
  • [25] SELF-SAMPLING FOR CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING IN RURAL SOUTH AFRICA: ACCEPTABILITY AND UPTAKE AMONG WOMEN IN THE EASTERN CAPE
    Sineke, V.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2015, 25 (09) : 165 - 165
  • [26] HPV-based cervical cancer screening, including self-sampling, versus screening with cytology in Argentina
    Arbyn, Marc
    de Sanjose, Silvia
    Weiderpass, Elisabete
    LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 7 (06): : E688 - E689
  • [27] Barriers and Advantages of Self-Sampling Tests , for HPV Diagnosis: A Qualitative Field Experience Before Implementation in a Rural Community in Ecuador
    Vega-Crespo, Bernardo
    Neira, Vivian Alejandra
    Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth
    Lopez, Diana
    Delgado-Lopez, Dayanara
    Guerra Astudillo, Gabriela
    Verhoeven, Veronique
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2024, 16 : 947 - 960
  • [28] Evaluation of satisfaction with three different cervical cancer screening modalities: clinician-collected Pap test vs. HPV test by self-sampling vs. HPV test by urine sampling
    Shin, Hye Young
    Lee, Bomyee
    Hwang, Sang-Hyun
    Lee, Dong Ock
    Sung, Na Young
    Park, Jae Young
    Jun, Jae Kwan
    JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2019, 30 (05)
  • [29] Awareness of HPV Testing and Acceptability of Self-sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in Minnesota
    Xuan Zhu
    Kathy L. MacLaughlin
    Chun Fan
    Debra J. Jacobson
    Gregory D. Jenkins
    Robert M. Jacobson
    Lila J. Finney Rutten
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2022, 37 : 1565 - 1568
  • [30] SELF-SAMPLING FOR CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING IN RURAL SOUTH AFRICA: ACCEPTABILITY AND UPTAKE AMONG WOMEN INTHE EASTERN CAPE
    Dreyer, G.
    Sineke, V.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2014, 24 (09) : 16 - 16