Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-05
Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DickinsonJA, StankiewiczA, PopadiukC, PoganyL, OnyskoJ, MillerAB. Reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Canada: National data from 1932–2006. BMC Public Health, 2012; 12:992.
2.
Canadian Cancer Statistics 2014.Canadian Cancer Society. Toronto, Ontario, 2014.
3.
AndraeB, KemetliL, SparenP, et al.Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: Evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2008; 100:622–629.
4.
SpenceAR, GogginP, FrancoEL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med, 2007; 45:93–106.
5.
Ontario Cervical Screening Program 2012 Report. Toronto, Canada: Cancer Care Ontario, 2014.
6.
GesinkD, MihicA, AntalJ, et al.Who are the under- and never- screened for cancer in Ontario: A qualitative investigation. BMC Public Health, 2014; 14:495.
7.
WalboomersJM, JacobsMV, ManosMM, et al.Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol, 1999; 189:12–19.
8.
ArbynM, RoncoG, AnttilaA, et al.Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine, 2012; 30Suppl 5:F88–F99.
9.
MayrandM-H, Duarte-FrancoE, RodriguesI, et al.Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med, 2007; 357:1579–1588.
10.
MurphyJ, KennedyEB, DunnS, et al.HPV testing in primary cervical screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2012; 34:443–452.
11.
ElfstromKM, SmelovV, JohanssonAL, et al.Long term duration of protective effect for HPV negative women: Follow-up of primary HPV screening randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 2014; 348:g130.
12.
RoncoG, DillnerJ, ElfstromKM, et al.Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: Follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet, 2014; 383:524–532.
13.
FrancoEL, MahmudSM, TotaJ, FerenczyA, CoutleeF. The expected impact of HPV vaccination on the accuracy of cervical cancer screening: The need for a paradigm change. Arch Med Res, 2009; 40:478–485.
14.
BurgerEA, OrtendahlJD, SyS, KristiansenIS, KimJJ. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway. Br J Cancer, 2012; 106:1571–1578.
15.
VijayaraghavanA, EfrusyMB, MayrandM-H, SantasCC, GogginP. Cost-effectiveness of high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in Québec, Canada. Can J Public Health, 2010; 101:220–225.
16.
MoyerVA. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2012; 156:880–891.
17.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer. CMAJ, 2013; 185:35–45.
18.
MurphyJ, KennedyEB, DunnS, et al.Cervical screening: A guideline for clinical practice in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2012; 34:453–458.
19.
WrightTC, StolerMH, BehrensCM, SharmaA, ZhangG, WrightTL. Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: End of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test. Gynecol Oncol, 2015; 136:189–197.
20.
KarwalajtysT, HowardM, SellorsJW, KaczorowskiJ. Vaginal self sampling versus physician cervical sampling for HPV among younger and older women. Sex Transm Infect, 2006; 82:337–339.
21.
OgilvieGS, PatrickDM, SchulzerM, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: A meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect, 2005; 81:207–212.
22.
PetignatP, FaltinDL, BruchimI, TramerMR, FrancoEL, CoutleeF. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol, 2007; 105:530–535.
23.
SzarewskiA, CadmanL, MallettS, et al.Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: Assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting. J Med Screen, 2007; 14:34–42.
24.
ArbynM, VerdoodtF, SnijdersPJ, et al.Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: A meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol, 2014; 15:172–183.
25.
ArbynM, CastlePE. Offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing to reach women who do not attend in the regular cervical cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2015; 24:769–772.
26.
CoronadoGD, ThompsonB, KoepsellTD, SchwartzSM, McLerranD. Use of Pap test among Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites in a rural setting. Prev Med, 2004; 38:713–722.
27.
WallerJ, BartoszekM, MarlowL, WardleJ. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: A population-based survey. J Med Screen, 2009; 16:199–204.
28.
DarlinL, BorgfeldtC, ForslundO, et al.Comparison of use of vaginal HPV self-sampling and offering flexible appointments as strategies to reach long-term non-attending women in organized cervical screening. J Clin Virol, 2013; 58:155–160.
29.
RaceyCS, WithrowDR, GesinkD. Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Public Health, 2013; 104:e159–e166.
30.
OgilvieG, KrajdenM, MaginleyJ, et al.Feasibility of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus testing in hard-to-reach women. Can Med Assoc J, 2007; 177:480–483.
31.
JohnstonGM, BoydCJ, MacIsaacMA. Community-based cultural predictors of Pap smear screening in Nova Scotia. Can J Public Health, 2004; 95:95–98.
32.
StudtsCR, TarasenkoYN, SchoenbergNE. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among middle-aged and older rural Appalachian women. J Community Health, 2013; 38:500–512.
33.
FrancoEL, CuzickJ, HildesheimA, de SanjoseS. Chapter 20: Issues in planning cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Vaccine, 2006; 24Suppl 3:S3/171–177.
34.
HuynhJ, HowardM, LytwynA. Self-collection for vaginal human papillomavirus testing: Systematic review of studies asking women thier perceptions. J, 2010; 14:356–362.
IgidbashianS, BoveriS, SpoltiN, RadiceD, SandriMT, SideriM. Self-collected human papillomavirus testing acceptability: Comparison of two self-sampling modalities. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2011; 20:397–402.
37.
ZehbeI, MoellerH, SeveriniA, et al.Feasibility of self-sampling and human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in First Nation women from Northwest Ontario, Canada: A pilot study. BMJ Open, 2011; 1:e000030.
38.
SandfortJR, PleasantA. Knowledge, attitudes, and informational behaviors of college students in regard to the human papillomavirus. J Am Coll Health, 2009; 58:141–149.
39.
ZubachV, SmartG, RatnamS, SeveriniA. Novel microsphere-based method for detection and typing of 46 mucosal human papillomavirus types. J Clin Microbiol, 2012; 50:460–464.
40.
CronbachLJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951; 16:297–334.
41.
TavakolM, DennickR. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ, 2011; 2:53–55.
42.
OgilvieGS, MitchellS, SekikuboM, et al.Results of a community-based cervical cancer screening pilot project using human papillomavirus self-sampling in Kampala, Uganda. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2013; 122:118–123.
43.
RosenbaumAJ, GageJC, AlfaroKM, et al.Acceptability of self-collected versus provider-collected sampling for HPV DNA testing among women in rural El Salvador. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2014; 126:156–160.
44.
SchmeinkCE, BekkersRL, MassugerLF, MelchersWJ. The potential role of self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening. Rev Med Virol, 2011; 21:139–153.
45.
VanderpoolRC, JonesMG, StradtmanLR, SmithJS, CrosbyRA. Self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for cervical cancer screening: An exploratory study of acceptability among medically underserved women in rural Appalachia. Gynecol Oncol, 2014; 132Suppl 1:S21–S25.
46.
ForrestS, McCafferyK, WallerJ, et al.Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK. J Med Screen, 2004; 11:85–88.
47.
HowardM, LytwynA, LohfeldL, Redwood-CampbellL, FowlerN, KarwalajtysT. Barriers to acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus across ethnolinguistic groups of women. Can J Public Health, 2009; 100:365–369.
48.
OgilvieGS, van NiekerkDJ, KrajdenM, et al.A randomized controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening: Trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial). BMC cancer, 2010; 10:111.
49.
BarataPC, MaiV, HowlettR, GagliardiAR, StewartDE. Discussions about self-obtained samples for HPV testing as an alternative for cervical cancer prevention. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2008; 29:251–257.
50.
MaarM, BurchellA, LittleJ, et al.A qualitative study of provider perspectives of structural barriers to cervical cancer screening among first nations women. Womens Health Issues, 2013; 23:e319–e325.
51.
ZahndWE, ScaifeSL, FrancisML. Health literacy skills in rural and urban populations. Am J Health Behav, 2009; 33:550–557.
52.
SmithLW, KhurshedF, van NiekerkDJ, et al.Women's intentions to self-collect samples for human papillomavirus testing in an organized cervical cancer screening program. BMC Public Health, 2014; 14:1060.
53.
LoftersA, VahabiM, GlazierRH. The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15:28.
54.
BrobergG, Gyrd-HansenD, Miao JonassonJ, et al.Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: Offering a HPV self-test to long-term non-attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Int J Cancer, 2014; 134:2223–2230.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
