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

Abstract

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

Cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV: a cross-sectional study using the baseline questionnaire data from the Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS)

“…Indeed, HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening has been shown to be very acceptable and feasible for hard-to-reach women, including ethnic minorities and Indigenous women, 45,46 particularly when the kits are mailed or delivered home in person. 32,[47][48][49] Being in a relationship and sexually inactive increased the likelihood of cervical cancer screening delays, as previously reported by others. 50,51 Explanations about HPV-related cancers need to specify that the risk remains even if a woman is no longer sexually active, because decades can pass between an initial HPV infection and the development of cervical cancer.…”

Self‐collection of samples for HPV testing to increase participation in cervical cancer screening by immigrant women: An integrative review

“…on subgroup-specific attitudes and beliefs about self-collection (De Alba et al, 2008;Forrest et al, 2004;Howard et al, 2009;Ilangovan et al, 2016;Lofters et al, 2017;Montealegre, Mullen, Jibaja-Weiss, Vargas Mendez, & Scheurer, 2015;Vahabi & Lofters, 2016;Virtanen et al, 2014) all the way through regional and national implementation with subgroup analysis for differences in uptake depending on delivery method (Kobetz et al, 2018;Tranberg et al, 2018). Three studies focused on CCS completion rates in the self-collection group versus standard clinic-based collection (Sewali et al, 2015;Virtanen et al, 2015;Virtanen, Anttila, Luostarinen, & Nieminen, 2011).…”

“…In three of the studies, the authors did not specify which type of self-collection device was being considered (Carrasquillo et al, 2018;Lofters et al, 2017;Sewali et al, 2015); in two studies, cotton swabs with transport media (De Alba et al, 2008) or fixative solution (Howard et al, 2009) was used. In two studies the POI/NIH self-sampler (Ilangovan et al, 2016;Kobetz et al, 2018) and the Delphi Screener™ (Virtanen et al, 2011(Virtanen et al, , 2014 were used,…”

“…In the study settings where a national screening registry was not used for recruitment, one commonality that emerged was the involvement of community members or organizations to identify and recruit participants, and to conduct aspects of the study itself. Several research teams used existing networks of CHWs, or lay health workers, to recruit participants and conduct the study (Barbee et al, 2010;Carrasquillo et al, 2018;De Alba et al, 2008;Ilangovan et al, 2016;Kobetz et al, 2018). As previously described, a nurse case manager was a key part of one study after test results were reported (Montealegre et al, 2015).…”

“…Of the four larger RCTs, one mentioned that the use of written and picture-based instructions all in Danish (Tranberg et al, 2018); two studies reported that they assessed cervical cancer knowledge (Carrasquillo et al, 2018;Kobetz et al, 2018), but since the primary outcome was the uptake of self-collection in settings where acceptability had already been assessed, there was little detail about educational components or women's feedback on confidence and comfort. Lastly, Virtanen et al (2011) reported that the self-collection arm received a data sheet about HPV infections and CCS (which would have also been shared during a routine clinic screening visit),…”