Acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among never- and under-screened Indigenous and other minority women: a randomised three-arm community trial in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Cervical screening
HPV DNA testing
Indigenous
Self-sampling
minorities
Journal
The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific
ISSN: 2666-6065
Titre abrégé: Lancet Reg Health West Pac
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101774968
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2021
revised:
01
07
2021
accepted:
08
08
2021
entrez:
30
9
2021
pubmed:
1
10
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Internationally, self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to increase participation in cervical-cancer screening. In Aotearoa New Zealand, there are long-standing ethnic inequalities in cervical-cancer screening, incidence, and mortality, particularly for indigenous Māori women, as well as Pacific and Asian women. We invited never- and markedly under-screened (≥5 years overdue) 30-69-year-old Māori, Pacific, and Asian women to participate in an open-label, three-arm, community-based, randomised controlled trial, with a nested sub-study. We aimed to assess whether two specific invitation methods for self-sampling improved screening participation over usual care among the least medically served populations We randomised 3,553 women: 1,574 to CLINIC, 1,467 to HOME, and 512 to USUAL. Participation was highest in HOME (14.6% among Māori, 8.8% among Pacific, and 18.5% among Asian) with CLINIC (7.0%, 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively) and USUAL (2.0%, 1.7% and 4.5%, respectively) being lower. In fully adjusted models, participation was statistically significantly more likely in HOME than USUAL: Māori OR=9.7, (95%CI 3.0-31.5); Pacific OR=6.0 (1.8-19.5); and Asian OR=5.1 (2.4-10.9). There were no adverse outcomes reported. After three months, 2,780 non-responding women were invited to participate in a non-randomised, opportunistic, follow-on substudy. After 6 months,192 (6.9%) additional women had taken a self-sample. Using recruitment methods that mimic usual practice, we provide critical evidence that self-sampling increases screening among the groups of women (never and under-screened) who experience the most barriers in Aotearoa New Zealand, although the absolute level of participation through this population approach was modest. Follow-up for most women was routine but a small proportion required intensive support. ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000367246 (date registered 12/3/2018) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371741&isReview=true; UTN: U1111-1189-0531. Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 16/405). http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/Study-protocol-V2.1Self-sampling-for-HPV-screening-a-community-trial.pdf.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Internationally, self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to increase participation in cervical-cancer screening. In Aotearoa New Zealand, there are long-standing ethnic inequalities in cervical-cancer screening, incidence, and mortality, particularly for indigenous Māori women, as well as Pacific and Asian women.
METHODS
METHODS
We invited never- and markedly under-screened (≥5 years overdue) 30-69-year-old Māori, Pacific, and Asian women to participate in an open-label, three-arm, community-based, randomised controlled trial, with a nested sub-study. We aimed to assess whether two specific invitation methods for self-sampling improved screening participation over usual care among the least medically served populations
FINDINGS
RESULTS
We randomised 3,553 women: 1,574 to CLINIC, 1,467 to HOME, and 512 to USUAL. Participation was highest in HOME (14.6% among Māori, 8.8% among Pacific, and 18.5% among Asian) with CLINIC (7.0%, 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively) and USUAL (2.0%, 1.7% and 4.5%, respectively) being lower. In fully adjusted models, participation was statistically significantly more likely in HOME than USUAL: Māori OR=9.7, (95%CI 3.0-31.5); Pacific OR=6.0 (1.8-19.5); and Asian OR=5.1 (2.4-10.9). There were no adverse outcomes reported. After three months, 2,780 non-responding women were invited to participate in a non-randomised, opportunistic, follow-on substudy. After 6 months,192 (6.9%) additional women had taken a self-sample.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Using recruitment methods that mimic usual practice, we provide critical evidence that self-sampling increases screening among the groups of women (never and under-screened) who experience the most barriers in Aotearoa New Zealand, although the absolute level of participation through this population approach was modest. Follow-up for most women was routine but a small proportion required intensive support.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000367246 (date registered 12/3/2018) https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371741&isReview=true; UTN: U1111-1189-0531.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 16/405).
PROTOCOL
METHODS
http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/Study-protocol-V2.1Self-sampling-for-HPV-screening-a-community-trial.pdf.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34590066
doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100265
pii: S2666-6065(21)00174-7
pmc: PMC8427317
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100265Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Bromhead has previously received educational funding to attend conferences from Roche Diagnostics, New Zealand. Dr. Brewer received funding from Janssen-Cilag Pty Limited. Dr. Crengle received personal fees as a Board member, WellSouth Primary Health Network, personal fees as a General Practitioner, Invercargill Medical Centre, and personal fees as a Board member, Royal NZ College of General Practitioners. Dr. Wihongi reports grants and other funding from Waitematā District Health Board, outside the submitted work. The rest of the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4823
pubmed: 30518635
Papillomavirus Res. 2020 Jun;9:100192
pubmed: 31809806
Int J Cancer. 2016 Jul 15;139(2):281-90
pubmed: 26850941
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 May;24(5):769-72
pubmed: 25713024
BMC Cancer. 2019 Dec 9;19(1):1198
pubmed: 31815615
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Apr;6(4):204
pubmed: 15830458
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):301-307
pubmed: 30614524
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):172-83
pubmed: 24433684
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Feb;61(1):135-141
pubmed: 33350455
N Z Med J. 2018 Mar 23;131(1472):53-63
pubmed: 29565936
Papillomavirus Res. 2020 Jun;9:100191
pubmed: 31838170
BMC Cancer. 2014 Mar 19;14:207
pubmed: 24646201
Can J Public Health. 2013 Feb 11;104(2):e159-66
pubmed: 23618210
Int J Cancer. 2013 May 15;132(10):2223-36
pubmed: 22907569
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 25;6(4):e010660
pubmed: 27113237