Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach

BMC Public Health

Jose Jeronimo¹  Proma Paul¹  Jennifer L Winkler¹  Jeanette L Lim¹  Scott Wittet¹  Pooja Bansil¹ 

[1] PATH, Seattle, Washington, USA

关键词: Low income resource settings;    Human papillomavirus (HPV);    Cervical cancer screening;    Experiences;    Self-sampling;   

Others  :  1129482
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-596

 received in 2013-08-29, accepted in 2014-06-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Vaginal self-sampling with HPV-DNA tests is a promising primary screening method for cervical cancer. However, women’s experiences, concerns and the acceptability of such tests in low-resource settings remain unknown.

Methods

In India, Nicaragua, and Uganda, a mixed-method design was used to collect data from surveys (N = 3,863), qualitative interviews (N = 72; 20 providers and 52 women) and focus groups (N = 30 women) on women’s and providers’ experiences with self-sampling, women’s opinions of sampling at home, and their future needs.

Results

Among surveyed women, 90% provided a self- collected sample. Of these, 75% reported it was easy, although 52% were initially concerned about hurting themselves and 24% were worried about not getting a good sample. Most surveyed women preferred self-sampling (78%). However it was not clear if they responded to the privacy of self-sampling or the convenience of avoiding a pelvic examination, or both. In follow-up interviews, most women reported that they didn’t mind self-sampling, but many preferred to have a provider collect the vaginal sample. Most women also preferred clinic-based screening (as opposed to home-based self-sampling), because the sample could be collected by a provider, women could receive treatment if needed, and the clinic was sanitary and provided privacy. Self-sampling acceptability was higher when providers prepared women through education, allowed women to examine the collection brush, and were present during the self-collection process. Among survey respondents, aids that would facilitate self-sampling in the future were: staff help (53%), additional images in the illustrated instructions (31%), and a chance to practice beforehand with a doll/model (26%).

Conclusion

Self-and vaginal-sampling are widely acceptable among women in low-resource settings. Providers have a unique opportunity to educate and prepare women for self-sampling and be flexible in accommodating women’s preference for self-sampling.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bansil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ferlay J, Shin H-R, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010, 127:2893-2917.
• [2]Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Gordillo-Tobar A, Levin C, Mahé C, Wright TC, Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost Working Group: Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med 2005, 353(20):2158-2168.
• [3]Sherris J, Wittet S, Kleine A, Sellors J, Luciani S, Sankaranarayanan R, Barone MA: Evidence-based, alternative cervical cancer screening approaches in low-resource settings. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2009, 35(3):147-154.
• [4]Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, Meijer CJ, Hoyer H, Ratnam S, Szarewski A, Birembaut P, Kulasingam S, Sasieni P, Iftner T: Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006, 119(5):1095-1101.
• [5]Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, Ratnam S, Coutlée F, Franco EL, Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Study Group: Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(16):1579-1588.
• [6]Schiffman M, Wentzensen N: From human papillomavirus to cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 116(1):177-185.
• [7]Franceschi S, Denny L, Irwin KL, Jeronimo J, Lopalco PL, Monsonego J, Peto J, Ronco G, Sasieni P, Wheeler CM: Eurogin 2010 roadmap on cervical cancer prevention. Int J Cancer 2011, 128(12):2765-2774.
• [8]Franco EL, Persistent HPV: Infection and cervical cancer risk: is the scientific rationale for changing the screening paradigm enough? J Natl Canc Inst 2010, 102(19):1451-1453.
• [9]Qiao YL, Sellors JW, Eder PS, Bao YP, Lim JM, Zhao FH, Weigl B, Zhang WH, Peck RB, Li L, Chen F, Pan QJ, Lorincz AT: A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. Lancet Oncol 2008, 9:929-936.
• [10]Gravitt PE, Belinson JL, Salmeron J, Shah KV: Looking ahead: a case for human papillomavirus testing of self-sampled vaginal specimens as a cervical cancer screening strategy. Int J Cancer 2011, 129(3):517-527.
• [11]Huynh J, Howard M, Lytwyn A: Self-collection for vaginal human papillomavirus testing: systematic review of studies asking women their perceptions. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2010, 14(4):356-362.
• [12]Stewart DE, Gagliardi A, Johnston M, Howlett R, Barata P, Lewis N, Oliver T, Mai V, HPV Self-collection Guidelines Panel: Self-collected samples for testing of oncogenic human papillomavirus: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007, 29(10):817-828.
• [13]Dzuba IG, Díaz EY, Allen B, Leonard YF, Lazcano Ponce EC, Shah KV, Bishai D, Lorincz A, Ferris D, Turnbull B, Hernández Avila M, Salmerón J: 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(3):265-275.
• [14]Quincy BL, Turbow DJ, Dabinett LN: Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens as a primary screen for cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol 2012, 32(1):87-91.
• [15]Safaeian M, Kiddugavu M, Gravitt PE, Ssekasanvu J, Murokora D, Sklar M, Serwadda D, Wawer MJ, Shah KV, Gray R1: Comparability of self-collected vaginal swabs and physician-collected cervical swabs for detection of human papillomavirus infections in Rakai, Uganda. Sex Transm Dis 2007, 34(7):429-436.
• [16]Barbee L, Kobetz E, Menard J, Cook N, Blanco J, Barton B, Auguste P, McKenzie N: Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action. Cancer Causes Control 2010, 21(3):421-431.
• [17]Forrest S, McCaffery K, Waller J, Desai M, Szarewski A, Cadman L, Wardle J: Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK. J Med Screen 2004, 11(2):85-88.
• [18]Mitchell S, Ogilvie G, Steinberg M, Sekikubo M, Biryabarema C, Money D: Assessing women’s willingness to collect their own cervical samples for HPV testing as part of the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011, 114(2):111-115.
• [19]Howard M, Lytwyn A, Lohfeld L, Redwood-Campbell L, Fowler N, Karwalajtys T: Barriers to acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus across ethnolinguistic groups of women. Can J Public Health 2009, 100(5):365-369.
• [20]Jeronimo J, Bansil P, Lim J, Peck R, Paul P, Amador JJ, Mirembe F, Byamugisha J, Poli UR, Satyanarayana L, Asthana S, START-UP Study group: A multi-country evaluation of careHPV™ testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, and pap testing for the detection of cervical pre-cancer and cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014, 24(3):576-585.
• [21]Tisci S, Shen YH, Fife D, Huang J, Goycoolea J, Ma CP, Belinson J, Huang RD, Qiao YL: Patient acceptance of self-sampling for human papillomavirus in rural china. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003, 7(2):107-116.
• [22]Sowjanya AP, Paul P, Vedantham H, Ramakrishna G, Vidyadhari D, Vijayaraghavan K, Laksmi S, Sudula M, Ronnett BM, Das M, Shah KV, Gravitt PE, Community Access to Cervical Health Study Group: Suitability of self-collected vaginal samples for cervical cancer screening in periurban villages in Andhra Pradesh, India. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18(5):1373-1378.
• [23]Arriba LN, Enerson CL, Belinson S, Novick L, Belinson J: Mexican cervical cancer screening study II: acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampler. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010, 20(8):1415-1423.