Dataset Information

A randomized trial of mailed HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women in South Florida.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

HPV self-sampling has previously been shown to increase cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority and immigrant women. We conducted a randomized pragmatic trial to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling delivered via in-person versus by US mail for medically underserved Hispanic, Haitian, and non-Hispanic Black women living in South Florida.

Methods

We randomized women aged 30-65 who had not completed Pap smear screening in the past 3 years into two groups: (1) HPV self-sampling delivered in-person (IP) by a community health worker (CHW; IP + SS) or (2) HPV self-sampling delivered via US mail (SS + Mail). Our primary outcome was HPV self-sampling completion by 6-month post-study enrollment.

Results

We enrolled 600 women. Approximately 65% were Hispanic and 35% were Haitian or non-Hispanic Black. Nearly half (43%) had an income of less than $20,000/year and 67% were uninsured. In intent-to-treat analyses, 71.6% of participants in the SS + Mail group and 81.0% of participants in the IP + SS group completed HPV self-sampling.

Conclusion

Mailed HPV self-sampling is an effective strategy to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved immigrant and ethnic minority women.

SUBMITTER: Kobetz E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6329676 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of mailed HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women in South Florida.

Kobetz Erin E Seay Julia J Koru-Sengul Tulay T Bispo Jordan Baeker JB Trevil Dinah D Gonzalez Martha M Brickman Andrew A Carrasquillo Olveen O

Cancer causes & control : CCC 20180711 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>HPV self-sampling has previously been shown to increase cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority and immigrant women. We conducted a randomized pragmatic trial to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling delivered via in-person versus by US mail for medically underserved Hispanic, Haitian, and non-Hispanic Black women living in South Florida.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomized women aged 30-65 who had not completed Pap smear screening in the past 3 years into two groups: ( ...[more]

PMID: 29995217

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US.ObjectiveTo conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs.InterventionParticipants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.Main outcome and measuresThe primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization.ResultsAmong 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

Project description:ObjectiveUptake for cervical cancer screening remains well below the 80% target as recommended by Brunei's National Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control plan. We conducted a pilot study to determine the reasons for non-attendance and explore their acceptance of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling as an alternative to the Pap test.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at a primary healthcare center in Brunei, from January to December 2019. We recruited screening non-attendees, defined as women who were eligible for Pap test but who either never, or did not have one within the recommended screening interval of 3 years. This recruitment was done conveniently among women attending outpatient care and/or child health services at the primary healthcare center. Participants were first asked to complete a self-administered paper-based questionnaire on their reasons for screening non-attendance, and then invited for HPV self-sampling. Among those who agreed to participate in HPV self-sampling, they were asked to complete a second questionnaire on the self-sampling procedure and their samples were tested for high-risk HPV (hr-HPV). Results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultWe enrolled 174 screening non-attendees, out of which 97 (55.7%) also participated in HPV self-sampling. The main reasons for not attending Pap test screening were fear of bad results (16.1%, n = 28); embarrassment (14.9%, n = 26) and lack of time due to home commitments (10.3%, n = 18). When compared to those who agreed to participate in HPV self-sampling, those who declined were significantly older (p = 0.002) and less likely to agree that they are susceptible to cervical cancer (p = 0.023). They preferred to receive Pap test-related information from healthcare workers (59.0%, n = 155), social messaging platforms (28.7%, n = 51) and social media (26.4%, n = 47). HPV self-sampling kits were positively received among the 97 participants, where > 90% agreed on its ease and convenience. Nine (9.3%) tested positive for hr-HPV, out of which eight were non-16/18 HPV genotypes.ConclusionOur findings suggest that promoting awareness on cervical cancer, clarifying any misconceptions of Pap test results, and highlighting that the disease is preventable and that early detection through screening can facilitate successful treatment would help increase screening uptake among Bruneian non-attendees. Response to HPV self-sampling was highly positive, suggesting the possibility of implementing this strategy in the local setting. Our high detection of non-16/18 HPV genotypes suggest high prevalence of other hr-HPV genotypes in Brunei. Larger studies should be conducted to further validate our findings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.DesignCost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA cohort of 10 000 women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).MethodsThe model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling (£).InterventionsThree sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen.Secondary outcomesnumber of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.ResultsIn the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year.ConclusionSelf-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.

Project description:BackgroundWe are presenting the results of the Slovenian human papillomaviruses (HPV) self-sampling pilot study in colposcopy population of National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme ZORA for the first time. One-year and four-year follow-up results are presented for two different self-sampling devices.Participants and methodsA total of 209 women were enrolled in the study at colposcopy clinic. Prior to the gynaecological examination, all women performed self-collected vaginal swab at the clinic; 111 using Qvintip and 98 using HerSwab self-sampling device. After self-sampling, two cervical smears were taken by a clinician; first for conventional cytology and second for HPV test. After that, all women underwent colposcopy and a cervical biopsy if needed. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of cytology (at the cut-off atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASC-US+]) and HPV test (on self- and clinician-taken samples) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) after one and four years of follow-up. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay was used for all HPV testing.ResultsThe mean age of 209 women was 37.6 years and HPV positivity rate 67.0% (140/209), 36.9 years and 70.3% (78/111) in the Qvintip group and 38.4 years and 63.3% (62/98) in the HerSwab group, respectively. Overall, percent agreement between self and clinician-taken samples was 81.8% (kappa 0.534) in the Qvintip and 77.1% (kappa 0.456) in the HerSwab group. In the Qvintip group, the longitudinal sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 71.8%, 75.0%, 83.6%, 60.0% for cytology; 83.1%, 51.3%, 75.6% and 62.5% for HPV test of self-taken samples and 94.4%, 57.5%, 79.8% and 85.2% for HPV test on clinician-taken samples. In the HerSwab group, the corresponding results were 71.7%, 46.7%, 61.3%, 58.3% for cytology; 75.0%, 47.7%, 62.9% and 61.8% for HPV test on self-taken samples and 94.3%, 44.4%, 66.7% and 87.0% for clinician-taken samples, respectively.ConclusionsThe results confirm that HPV self-sampling is not as accurate as clinician sampling when HC2 is used. All HPV tests showed a higher sensitivity in detecting CIN2+ compared to cytology. Due to non-inferior longitudinal sensitivity of HPV self-sampling compared to cytology, HPV self-sampling might be an option for non-attenders to the National Cancer Screening Programme.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of mailed HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women in South Florida.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A randomized trial of mailed HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women in South Florida.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets