"The best thing is that you are doing it for yourself" - perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling among cervical cancer screening clients in Tanzania: a qualitative pilot study.
Early Detection of Cancer
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Mass Screening
/ methods
Papillomaviridae
/ isolation & purification
Papillomavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Pilot Projects
Qualitative Research
Self Care
Tanzania
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Vaginal Smears
Acceptability
Cervical screening
Feasibility
HPV
Qualitative study
Self-sampling
Tanzania
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 03 2020
31 03 2020
Historique:
received:
13
08
2018
accepted:
05
03
2020
entrez:
3
4
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cervical cancer is the most common type of cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is also the cancer disease that most women die from. The high mortality rate is partly due to low attendance rates to screening services and low sensitivity of visual inspection with acetic acid, which is the standard screening method used in screening programs in sub-Saharan Africa. In order to overcome of the burden of disease new screening strategies and methods are warranted. This study aims to explore the acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling compared to provider-based sampling among cervical cancer screening clients living in Dar es Salaam. Women attending cervical cancer screening at Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania between February - April 2017 were invited into the study. The participants had (1) a provider-collected sample, and (2) a self-sample for HPV on top of the regular cervical cancer screening. 50% of the participants conducted the self-sample after receiving a written instruction guide of how to collect the sample (written). The other 50% received both the written and an oral introduction to self-sampling (written+). All participants could ask for nurse assistance during self-sample collection if needed. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants post sample collection. Data collection stopped when saturation was reached. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis. Twenty-one women participated in the study. Regardless of how women were introduced to the self-sample (written or written+), there was a high demand for nurse presence as they felt uncertain of their personal capabilities to collect the self-sample correctly. However, as long as nurse assistance was an option most women perceived self-sampling as easy and comfortable though few experienced bleeding and pain. The majority of women preferred self-sampling over provider-sampling primarily due to the method being more private than the provider-sampling. HPV self-sampling was well-perceived and accepted, however, for the method to be feasible a nurse needed to be present. HPV Self-sampling may be an alternative method to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening. Larger quantitative studies are recommended to support the study findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer is the most common type of cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is also the cancer disease that most women die from. The high mortality rate is partly due to low attendance rates to screening services and low sensitivity of visual inspection with acetic acid, which is the standard screening method used in screening programs in sub-Saharan Africa. In order to overcome of the burden of disease new screening strategies and methods are warranted. This study aims to explore the acceptability and feasibility of HPV self-sampling compared to provider-based sampling among cervical cancer screening clients living in Dar es Salaam.
METHODS
Women attending cervical cancer screening at Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania between February - April 2017 were invited into the study. The participants had (1) a provider-collected sample, and (2) a self-sample for HPV on top of the regular cervical cancer screening. 50% of the participants conducted the self-sample after receiving a written instruction guide of how to collect the sample (written). The other 50% received both the written and an oral introduction to self-sampling (written+). All participants could ask for nurse assistance during self-sample collection if needed. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants post sample collection. Data collection stopped when saturation was reached. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-one women participated in the study. Regardless of how women were introduced to the self-sample (written or written+), there was a high demand for nurse presence as they felt uncertain of their personal capabilities to collect the self-sample correctly. However, as long as nurse assistance was an option most women perceived self-sampling as easy and comfortable though few experienced bleeding and pain. The majority of women preferred self-sampling over provider-sampling primarily due to the method being more private than the provider-sampling.
CONCLUSIONS
HPV self-sampling was well-perceived and accepted, however, for the method to be feasible a nurse needed to be present. HPV Self-sampling may be an alternative method to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening. Larger quantitative studies are recommended to support the study findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32234028
doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-00917-7
pii: 10.1186/s12905-020-00917-7
pmc: PMC7110708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65Références
BMC Public Health. 2010 Feb 14;10:68
pubmed: 20152055
Trials. 2017 Nov 21;18(1):555
pubmed: 29162148
BMJ Open. 2015 Mar 10;5(3):e005828
pubmed: 25757944
Cancer Epidemiol. 2009 Dec;33(6):446-50
pubmed: 19931499
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Feb 26;11(1):153
pubmed: 29482602
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 19;14(6):e0218559
pubmed: 31216333
Sex Transm Infect. 2007 Dec;83(7):552-7
pubmed: 17901084
Sex Transm Dis. 2012 Mar;39(3):201-8
pubmed: 22337107
Infect Agent Cancer. 2017 Feb 6;12:11
pubmed: 28184239
Int J Womens Health. 2018 Apr 11;10:187-194
pubmed: 29692637
Sex Transm Dis. 2008 Nov;35(11):916-7
pubmed: 18665020
Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1587894
pubmed: 30938248
BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 19;12:1093
pubmed: 23253445
Pan Afr Med J. 2014 Mar 11;17:189
pubmed: 25396015
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 27;9(2):e024011
pubmed: 30819704
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013 Jul;17(3):235-41
pubmed: 23422643
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 May;109(2):100-4
pubmed: 20152973
Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Jul;40(7):552-5
pubmed: 23965769
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Oct;14(10):1287-302
pubmed: 19772550
Int J Cancer. 2017 Jan 15;140(2):440-448
pubmed: 27685757
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jun 12;14:596
pubmed: 24927941
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40766
pubmed: 22808257
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Aug;114(2):111-5
pubmed: 21669428
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014 Nov;57(11):1270-6
pubmed: 25303829
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 May 21;29:40-47
pubmed: 31309135
Int J Cancer. 2014 Aug 15;135(4):896-904
pubmed: 24391021
Int J Cancer. 2014 Oct 15;135(8):1911-7
pubmed: 24615324
Pan Afr Med J. 2018 Jun 12;30:110
pubmed: 30364362
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016 Sep;25(9):944-51
pubmed: 26890012
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Dec;21(12):1275-81
pubmed: 22906043
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011 Mar;20(3):397-402
pubmed: 21351869
Womens Health Issues. 2013 Mar-Apr;23(2):e123-30
pubmed: 23410619
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285