Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
early detection of cancer
general practice
human papillomavirus DNA tests
older women
self-sampling
Journal
The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN: 1478-5242
Titre abrégé: Br J Gen Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005323
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
08
06
2021
accepted:
25
08
2021
entrez:
1
1
2022
pubmed:
2
1
2022
medline:
9
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier. To assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50-64 years. Pragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK. Participants were 784 women aged 50-64 years, last screened 6-15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months. Screening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% ( Offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier.
AIM
To assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50-64 years.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Pragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK.
METHOD
Participants were 784 women aged 50-64 years, last screened 6-15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months.
RESULTS
Screening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (
CONCLUSION
Offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34972808
pii: BJGP.2021.0350
doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0350
pmc: PMC8714504
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e26-e33Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C16499/A21716
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C8162/A27047
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C7492/A17219
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Authors.
Références
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002 Apr;11(3):265-75
pubmed: 11988136
JMIR Cancer. 2020 Oct 29;6(2):e21697
pubmed: 33027039
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Feb;93(1):56-61
pubmed: 28100761
J Med Screen. 2018 Dec;25(4):205-210
pubmed: 29439604
J Med Screen. 2018 Jun;25(2):88-98
pubmed: 28530513
BJOG. 2012 Jan;119(1):26-32
pubmed: 21668764
Prev Med. 2017 Aug;101:60-66
pubmed: 28502577
N Engl J Med. 1979 May 31;300(22):1242-5
pubmed: 431682
Qual Prim Care. 2012;20(2):115-23
pubmed: 22824564
J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):193-8
pubmed: 20054094
Lancet Public Health. 2018 Jan;3(1):e34-e43
pubmed: 29307386
J Med Screen. 2015 Mar;22(1):28-37
pubmed: 25403717
Prev Med. 2020 Oct;139:106170
pubmed: 32610059
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Aug;98(8):1063-1069
pubmed: 30868579
PLoS Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):e1001585
pubmed: 24453946
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 May 11;(5):CD002834
pubmed: 21563135
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Feb 26;19(1):38
pubmed: 30808349
J Med Screen. 2004;11(2):85-8
pubmed: 15153323
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2018 May 22;25:48-51
pubmed: 30023421
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 24;14(10):e1002414
pubmed: 29065127
Br J Cancer. 2011 Mar 15;104(6):915-20
pubmed: 21343937
J Clin Pathol. 2002 Jun;55(6):435-9
pubmed: 12037026
Lancet. 2017 Apr 1;389(10076):1323-1335
pubmed: 28236464
J Med Screen. 2017 Mar;24(1):43-49
pubmed: 27235844
J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):199-204
pubmed: 20054095
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Dec;29(4):251-7
pubmed: 18608824
J Med Screen. 2017 Sep;24(3):127-145
pubmed: 27754937
Anticancer Res. 2019 Jan;39(1):381-386
pubmed: 30591484