Women’s intentions to self-collect samples for human papillomavirus testing in an organized cervical cancer screening program

BMC Public Health

Gina S Ogilvie²  Eduardo L Franco⁵  Andrew J Coldman¹  Suzanne Hobbs⁴  Sandra B Greene⁴  Mel Krajden²  Dirk J van Niekerk³  Fareeza Khurshed³  Laurie W Smith³ 

[1]University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

[2]British Columbia Centre For Disease Control, Vancouver, Canada

[3]British Columbia Cancer Agency, 711-750 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1H6, Canada

[4]University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

[5]McGill University, Montreal, Canada

关键词: Theory of planned behaviour;    Intention;    Self-collection;    Cervical cancer screening;    Human papillomavirus (HPV);   

Others  :  1126224
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1060

 received in 2014-01-23, accepted in 2014-10-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Mounting evidence affirms HPV testing as an effective cervical cancer screening tool, and many organized screening programs are considering adopting it as primary testing. HPV self-collection has comparable sensitivity to clinician collected specimens and is considered a feasible option in hard-to-reach women. We explored women’s intentions to HPV self-collect for cervical cancer screening from a cohort participating in a Canadian randomized controlled cervical cancer screening trial.

Methods

Women aged 25–65 were invited to complete an online survey assessing intentions to be screened with HPV testing instead of the Pap smear. The survey was based in the Theory of Planned Behaviour and questions were included to assess women’s intentions to self-collect for HPV. Demographic characteristics of women who intended to self-collect were compared with those who did not. Demographic and scale variables achieving a p-value <0.1 in the univariate and bivariate analyses were included in the stepwise logistic regression model. The final model was created to predict factors associated with women’s intentions to self-collect an HPV specimen for cervical cancer. Odds ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals to identify variables associated with a woman’s intention to self-collect for cervical cancer screening.

Results

The overall survey response rate was 63.8% (981/1538) with 447 (45.6%) reporting they intended to self-collect, versus 534 (54.4%) reporting they did not. In the univariate analysis, women with more than high school education were more likely to self-collect. Women who intended to receive HPV testing versus the Pap smear were 1.94 times as likely to be in favour of self-collection and those who intended to self-collect had significantly higher attitudinal scores towards HPV self-collection. The adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval from the multivariate analysis demonstrated attitude towards self-collection was the only significant variable predicting a woman’s intention to self-collect (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.29).

Conclusions

The primary predictor of a woman’s intention to HPV self-collect for cervical cancer screening was her attitude towards the procedure. From a program planning perspective, these results indicate that education and awareness may be significant contributing factors to improving acceptance of self-collection and subsequently, improving screening attendance rates.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Smith et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Tsu V, Ronco G, Mayrand MH, Dillner J, Meijer CJ: Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine 2008, 26(Suppl 10):K29-K41.
• [2]Franco EL, Duarte-Franco E, Ferenczy A: Cervical cancer: epidemiology, prevention and the role of human papillomavirus infection. CMAJ 2001, 164(7):1017-1025.
• [3]Sancho-Garnier H, Tamalet C, Halfon P, Leandri FX, Retraite LL, Djoufelkit K, Heid P, Davies P, Piana L: HPV self-sampling or the Pap-smear: a randomized study among cervical screening non-attenders from lower socioeconomic groups in France. Int J Cancer 2013, 133(11):2681-2687.
• [4]Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E: Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Br J Cancer 1996, 73(8):1001-1005.
• [5]Colgan TJ, Clarke A, Hakh N, Seidenfeld A: Screening for cervical disease in mature women: strategies for improvement. Cancer 2002, 96(4):195-203.
• [6]Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Munoz N: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999, 189(1):12-19.
• [7]Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, Herrero R, Castellsagué X, Shah KV, Snijders PJF, Meijer CJLM: Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348(6):518-527.
• [8]Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Arbyn M, Ogilvie G, Minozzi S, Banzi R, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DA, Meijer CJ: High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2013, 132(10):2223-2236.
• [9]Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Koliopoulos G, Naucler P, Sankaranarayanan R, Peto J: Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012, 30(Suppl 5):F88-F99.
• [10]Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasingam SL, Cain J, Garcia FA, Moriarty AT, Waxman AG, Wilbur DC, Wentzensen N, Downs LS Jr, Spitzer M, Moscicki AB, Franco EL, Stoler MH, Schiffman M, Castle PE, Myers ER, American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American Society for Clinical Pathology: American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2012, 137(4):516-542.
• [11]Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, Sellors JW, Petric M, Chambers K, White R, FitzGerald JM: 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(3):207-212.
• [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]Ogilvie G, Krajden M, Maginley J, Isaac-Renton J, Hislop G, Elwood-Martin R, Sherlock C, Taylor D, Rekart M: Feasibility of self-collection of specimens for human papillomavirus testing in hard-to-reach women. CMAJ 2007, 177(5):480-483.
• [14]Racey CS, Withrow DR, Gesink D: Self-collected HPV testing improves participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Public Health 2013, 104(2):e159-e166.
• [15]British Columbia Cancer Agency: Cervical cancer screening program 2012 annual report. 2013. http://www.screeningbc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F2D89BB9-3B33-4DBD-BE76-975A220B0C7B/69596/CCSPAnnualReport2012PrintVersion.pdf webcite
• [16]Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Verheijen RH, Snijders PJ, Voorhorst F, Babovic M, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJ, Meijer CJ: Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int J Cancer 2007, 120(7):1505-1510.
• [17]Ogilvie GS, van Niekerk DJ, Krajden M, Martin RE, Ehlen TG, Ceballos K, Peacock SJ, Smith LW, Kan L, Cook DA, Mei W, Stuart GC, Franco EL, Coldman AJ: A randomized controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening: trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial). BMC Cancer 2010, 10:111-2407. 10-111 BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Ogilvie GS, Krajden M, van Niekerk DJ, Martin RE, Ehlen TG, Ceballos K, Smith LW, Kan L, Cook DA, Peacock S, Stuart GC, Franco EL, Coldman AJ: Primary cervical cancer screening with HPV testing compared with liquid-based cytology: results of round 1 of a randomised controlled trial – the HPV FOCAL Study. Br J Cancer 2012, 107(12):1917-1924.
• [19]Hankins M, French D, Horne R: Statistical guidelines for studies of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health 2000, 15(2):151-161.
• [20]Francis J, Eccles M, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Kaner E, Smith L, Bonetti D: Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior: A manual for health services researchers. 2004, 1-42. Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle. United Kingdom
• [21]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour Hum Decis Process 1991, 50(2):179-211.
• [22]Armitage CJ, Conner M: Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001, 40(Pt 4):471-499.
• [23]Cooke R, French DP: How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psychol Health 2008, 23(7):745-765.
• [24]Armitage CJ, Christian J: From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Curr Psychol 2003, 22(3):187-195.
• [25]Ogilvie GS, Smith LW, van Niekerk DJ, Khurshed F, Krajden M, Saraiya M, Goel V, Rimer BK, Greene SB, Hobbs S, Coldman AJ, Franco EL: Women’s intentions to receive cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing. Int J Cancer 2013, 133(12):2934-2943.
• [26]The American Association for Public Opinion Research: Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. 2011.
• [27]Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, Kitchener H, Segnan N, Gilham C, Giorgi-Rossi P, Berkhof J, Peto J, Meijer CJ, the International HPV screening working group: Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014, 383:524-532.
• [28]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.
• [29]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.
• [30]Elit L, Saskin R, Raut R, Elliott L, Murphy J, Marrett L: Sociodemographic factors associated with cervical cancer screening coverage and follow-up of high grade abnormal results in a population-based cohort. Gynecol Oncol 2013, 128(1):95-100.