30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The experience of under-screened and never-screened participants using clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening within the Australian National Cervical Screening Program

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Australia has had significant successes in the prevention of cervical cancer. However, there is considerable scope for improving screening participation. In December 2017, Australia shifted from cytology to a human papillomavirus–based screening program as part of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program. This provided the opportunity to introduce a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway, which allows screening participants aged 30 years or more and who are under-screened or never-screened to screen via a self-collected human papillomavirus test.

          Objective:

          This study aimed to explore screening participant experiences of a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway.

          Methods:

          Interviews (n = 45) were conducted with participants who had used the clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program between December 2017 and April 2019. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis.

          Results:

          Under-screened and never-screened participants reported a variety of interrelated barriers to cervical screening due to the nature of the test. For these participants, self-collection was a preferable way to perform screening as it overcame various barriers, was easy to use and promoted a sense of empowerment. Participants reported that the role of their practitioner was influential in their decision to undertake cervical screening, and that the support and information provided was a key factor in their experiences of the self-collection pathway.

          Conclusion:

          Findings support the use of a clinician-supported model of care, as an alternative screening modality in Australia’s National Cervical Screening Program. As more countries consider the move from a cytology to human papillomavirus–based cervical screening program, this model may assist in greater engagement of under-screened participants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials.

          In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176,464 women aged 20-64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1,214,415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46-1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25-0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15-0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 10(5) (1·1-12·1) and 8·7 per 10(5) (3·3-18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 10(5) (7·9-27·0) and 36·0 per 10(5) (23·2-53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14-0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49-1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30-34 years (0·36, 0·14-0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60-70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses

            Abstract Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women. Design Updated meta-analysis. Data sources Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review). Review methods Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women. Results 56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I2>95%). Conclusions When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Human papillomavirus in cervical cancer and oropharyngeal cancer: One cause, two diseases.

              Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes greater than 5% of cancers worldwide, including all cervical cancers and an alarmingly increasing proportion of oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Despite markedly reduced cervical cancer incidence in industrialized nations with organized screening programs, cervical cancer remains the second most common cause of death from cancer in women worldwide, as developing countries lack resources for universal, high-quality screening. In the United States, HPV-related OPC is only 1 of 5 cancers with a rising incidence since 1975 and now has taken over the cervix as the most common site of HPV-related cancer. Similar trends follow throughout North America and Europe. The need for early detection and prevention is paramount. Despite the common etiologic role of HPV in the development of cervical cancer and HPV-associated OPC, great disparity exists between incidence, screening modalities (or lack thereof), treatment, and prevention in these 2 very distinct cohorts. These differences in cervical cancer and HPV-associated OPC and their impact are discussed here. Cancer 2017;123:2219-2229. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing original draftRole: Writing review editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing review editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing review editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing review editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing review editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing review editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing review editing
                Journal
                Womens Health (Lond)
                Womens Health (Lond)
                WHE
                spwhe
                Women's Health
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1745-5057
                1745-5065
                11 February 2022
                2022
                : 18
                : 17455065221075905
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [2 ]VCS Population Health, VCS Foundation, Carlton, VIC, Australia
                [3 ]University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Royal Women’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                Author notes
                [*]Nicola S Creagh, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 4, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC 3051, Australia. Email: n.creagh@ 123456unimelb.edu.au
                [†]

                Deceased

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-5453
                Article
                10.1177_17455065221075905
                10.1177/17455065221075905
                8841921
                35147064
                5b8da36d-de76-47bc-adc8-a1e44eeaf92c
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 3 July 2021
                : 2 December 2021
                : 5 January 2022
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2022
                ts1

                cervical cancer,experience,qualitative,screening,self-collection

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content121

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors440