Human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA testing combined with self-sampling could increase cervical cancer screening effectiveness, utilizing a sensitive screening modality and an easy sampling method with minimal pain or discomfort. Self-sampling acceptability, though, is pivotal.
Materials and Methods:
This study is a nested cross-sectional survey within GRECOSELF, a cross-sectional study on HPV-based screening with self-sampling, aiming at investigating self-sampling acceptability among Greek women residing in rural areas, and the factors affecting it. Women between 25 and 60 years old were recruited by midwives participating in a nationwide midwifery network. Participants, after self-sampling, filled out a questionnaire with three sections, one regarding demographic characteristics, a second with questions pertaining to the participants' cervical cancer screening history, and a third with questions regarding the self-sampling process per se.
Results:
The sample included 13,111 women. Most participants (67.9%), including those screened or not in the past, would prefer self-sampling if assured that the results are not inferior to standard testing. Discomfort or pain during self-sampling was absent or minimal in 97.1% and 96.5% of the cases, respectively, and 74.4% of the women felt adequately confident that they followed the instructions correctly. Women mostly preferred self-sampling at home compared with health care facilities. Pain and discomfort during the procedure, although rare, were significant factors against acceptance. Most of the women reporting a negative impression had a negative experience with conventional sampling in the past.
Conclusion:
Self-sampling is highly acceptable. Acceptance can be further improved with proper communication of the process and its noninferiority compared with conventional screening.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
VaccarellaS, Lortet-TieulentJ, PlummerM, FranceschiS, BrayF. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: Impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer, 2013; 49:3262–3273.
2.
QuinnM, BabbP, JonesJ, AllenE. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: Evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ, 1999; 318:904–908.
3.
ChenC, YangZ, LiZ, LiL. Accuracy of several cervical screening strategies for early detection of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012; 22:908–921.
4.
WallerJ, BartoszekM, MarlowL, WardleJ. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: A population-based survey. J Med Screen, 2009; 16:199–204.
5.
OstenssonE, AlderS, ElfstromKM, et al.Barriers to and facilitators of compliance with clinic-based cervical cancer screening: Population-based cohort study of women aged 23–60 years. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0128270.
6.
de SanjoseS, HolmeF. What is needed now for successful scale-up of screening?. Papillomavirus Res, 2019; 7:173–175.
7.
KoliopoulosG, ArbynM, Martin-HirschP, KyrgiouM, PrendivilleW, ParaskevaidisE. Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Gynecol Oncol, 2007; 104:232–246.
8.
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.
9.
KoliopoulosG, NyagaVN, SantessoN, et al.Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 8:CD008587.
10.
BurgerEA, PedersenK, SyS, KristiansenIS, KimJJ. Choosing wisely: A model-based analysis evaluating the trade-offs in cancer benefit and diagnostic referrals among alternative HPV testing strategies in Norway. Br J Cancer, 2017; 117:783–790.
VerdoodtF, JentschkeM, HillemannsP, RaceyCS, SnijdersPJ, ArbynM. Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer, 2015; 51:2375–2385.
13.
AgorastosT, ChatzistamatiouK, ZafrakasM, et al.Epidemiology of HPV infection and current status of cervical cancer prevention in Greece: Final results of the LYSISTRATA cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer Prev, 2014; 23:425–431.
14.
AgorastosT, ChatzistamatiouK, TsertanidouA, et al.Implementation of HPV-based cervical cancer screening combined with self-sampling using a midwifery network across rural Greece. The GRECOSELF study. Cancer Prev Res, 2019; 12:701–710.
15.
XueY, HauskrechtM. Active learning of classification models with Likert-Scale feedback. Proc SIAM Int Conf Data Min, 2017; 2017:28–35.
16.
BasuP, PontiA, AnttilaA, et al.Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report. Int J Cancer J Int Cancer, 2018; 142:44–56.
17.
JemalA, WardE, ThunM. Declining death rates reflect progress against cancer. PLoS One, 2010; 5:e9584.
18.
ChrysostomouAC, StylianouDC, ConstantinidouA, KostrikisLG. Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Europe: The transition towards HPV vaccination and population-based HPV testing. Viruses, 2018; 10:729.
19.
ArbynM, SmithSB, TeminS, et al.Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: Updated meta-analyses. BMJ, 2018; 363:k4823.
20.
ChatzistamatiouK, ChatzakiE, ConstantinidisT, NenaE, TsertanidouA, AgorastosT. Self-collected cervicovaginal sampling for site-of-care primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening: A pilot study in a rural underserved Greek population. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2017; 37:1059–1064.
21.
Sancho-GarnierH, TamaletC, HalfonP, et al.HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: A randomized study among cervical screening nonattenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Int J Cancer, 2013; 133:2681–2687.
22.
GuptaS, PalmerC, BikEM, et al.Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing: Increased cervical cancer screening participation and incorporation in international screening programs. Front Public Health, 2018; 6:77.
23.
MarlowLA, WallerJ, WardleJ. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: A qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care, 2015; 41:248–254.
24.
LoftersAK, VahabiM, FardadM, RazaA. Exploring the acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling among Muslim immigrant women. Cancer Manag Res, 2017; 9:323–329.
25.
AlcalaHE, MitchellE, Keim-MalpassJ. Adverse childhood experiences and cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2017; 26:58–63.
26.
CadmanL, WallerJ, Ashdown-BarrL, SzarewskiA. Barriers to cervical screening in women who have experienced sexual abuse: An exploratory study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care, 2012; 38:214–220.
27.
EnerlyE, BondeJ, ScheeK, PedersenH, LonnbergS, NygardM. Self-Sampling for human papillomavirus testing among non-attenders increases attendance to the Norwegian cervical cancer screening programme. PLoS One, 2016; 11:e0151978.
28.
GokM, HeidemanDA, van KemenadeFJ, et al.HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: Cohort study. BMJ, 2010; 340:c1040.
29.
GokM, van KemenadeFJ, HeidemanDA, et al.Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer, 2012; 130:1128–1135.
30.
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.
31.
NelsonEJ, MaynardBR, LouxT, FatlaJ, GordonR, ArnoldLD. The acceptability of self-sampled screening for HPV DNA: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect, 2017; 93:56–61.
32.
KohlerRE, ElliottT, MonareB, et al.HPV self-sampling acceptability and preferences among women living with HIV in Botswana. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2019; 147:332–338.
33.
MurchlandAR, GottschlichA, BevilacquaK, et al.HPV self-sampling acceptability in rural and indigenous communities in Guatemala: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 2019; 9:e029158.
34.
LorenziNPC, TerminiL, Longatto FilhoA, et al.Age-related acceptability of vaginal self-sampling in cervical cancer screening at two university hospitals: A pilot cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 2019; 19:963.
35.
MitchellEM, LothamerH, GarciaC, et al.Acceptability and feasibility of community-based, lay navigator-facilitated at-home self-collection for human papillomavirus testing in underscreened women. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2020; 29:596–602.
36.
BiedermanE, ChampionV, ZimetG. A conjoint analysis study on self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing characteristics among black women in Indiana. BMC Womens Health, 2020; 20:55.
37.
MorganK, AzzaniM, KhaingSL, WongYL, SuTT. Acceptability of women self-sampling versus clinician-collected samples for HPV DNA testing: A systematic review. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 2019; 23:193–199.
38.
BennettKF, WallerJ, ChorleyAJ, FerrerRA, HaddrellJB, MarlowLA. Barriers to cervical screening and interest in self-sampling among women who actively decline screening. J Med Screen, 2018; 25:211–217.
39.
BosgraafRP, VerhoefVM, MassugerLF, et al.Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening. Int J Cancer J Int Cancer, 2015; 136:646–655.
40.
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 J Int Cancer, 2014; 134:2223–2230.
41.
PolmanNJ, de HaanY, VeldhuijzenNJ, et al.Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands. Prev Med, 2019; 125:5–11.
42.
DzubaIG, DiazEY, AllenB, et al.The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med, 2002; 11:265–275.
43.
ZehbeI, WakewichP, KingAD, MorrisseauK, TuckC. Self-administered versus provider-directed sampling in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study (ACCSS): A qualitative investigation with Canadian First Nations women. BMJ Open, 2017; 7:e017384.
44.
SultanaF, MullinsR, EnglishDR, et al.Women's experience with home-based self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing. BMC Cancer, 2015; 15:849.
45.
Allen-LeighB, Uribe-ZunigaP, Leon-MaldonadoL, et al.Barriers to HPV self-sampling and cytology among low-income indigenous women in rural areas of a middle-income setting: A qualitative study. BMC Cancer, 2017; 17:734.
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.
