Implementing community-based human papillomavirus self-sampling with SMS text follow-up for cervical cancer screening in rural, southwestern Uganda.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
entrez:
10
1
2022
pubmed:
11
1
2022
medline:
12
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Self-collected HPV screening may improve cervical cancer screening coverage in low resource countries, yet data guiding implementation and follow-up of abnormal results are sparse. This is a prospective cohort implementation study of HPV self-testing program in Mbarara, Uganda with mobile phones to facilitate result notification and referral for treatment at a regional hospital. The effectiveness of the interventions was analyzed using Proctor's model of implementation. Women were interviewed following screening and at 6 months to assess acceptability and barriers to follow-up. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. 159 of 194 (82%) of eligible women underwent HPV self-sampling; of these, 27 (17%) returned positive for high-risk HPV subtypes. We sent SMS messages providing test results and follow-up instructions to all participants. Seventeen (63%) hrHPV-positive participants reported receiving SMS text instructions for follow-up, of whom 6 (35%) presented for follow-up. The most common reasons for not returning were: lack of transportation (n = 11), disbelief of results (n = 5), lack of childcare (n = 4), and lack of symptoms (n = 3). Confidence in test results was higher for self-screening compared to VIA (Likert score 4.8 vs 4.4, Despite the use of SMS text-based referrals, only one-third of women presented for clinical follow-up after abnormal HPV testing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Self-collected HPV screening may improve cervical cancer screening coverage in low resource countries, yet data guiding implementation and follow-up of abnormal results are sparse.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a prospective cohort implementation study of HPV self-testing program in Mbarara, Uganda with mobile phones to facilitate result notification and referral for treatment at a regional hospital. The effectiveness of the interventions was analyzed using Proctor's model of implementation. Women were interviewed following screening and at 6 months to assess acceptability and barriers to follow-up. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
159 of 194 (82%) of eligible women underwent HPV self-sampling; of these, 27 (17%) returned positive for high-risk HPV subtypes. We sent SMS messages providing test results and follow-up instructions to all participants. Seventeen (63%) hrHPV-positive participants reported receiving SMS text instructions for follow-up, of whom 6 (35%) presented for follow-up. The most common reasons for not returning were: lack of transportation (n = 11), disbelief of results (n = 5), lack of childcare (n = 4), and lack of symptoms (n = 3). Confidence in test results was higher for self-screening compared to VIA (Likert score 4.8 vs 4.4,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the use of SMS text-based referrals, only one-third of women presented for clinical follow-up after abnormal HPV testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35003710
doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.04036
pii: jogh-11-04036
pmc: PMC8709902
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
04036Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH113494
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: ACT reports receiving a financial stipend from Elsevier, Inc. for his work as Co-editor in chief of the journal SSM-Mental Health. The authors have completed the ICMJE Declaration of Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no further conflicts of interest.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 14;8:CD013680
pubmed: 32779730
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45643
pubmed: 23029155
Int J Cancer. 2015 Nov 1;137(9):2208-19
pubmed: 25943074
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;(3):CD009756
pubmed: 22419345
Infect Agent Cancer. 2019 May 14;14:14
pubmed: 31114629
PLoS Med. 2008 Jun 17;5(6):e132
pubmed: 18563963
Oncol Lett. 2020 Sep;20(3):2058-2074
pubmed: 32782524
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2020 Jun 22;33:100605
pubmed: 32637528
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):172-83
pubmed: 24433684
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Mar;11(3):249-57
pubmed: 20089449
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):78-88
pubmed: 22177579
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):229-238
pubmed: 30658933
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2009 Jan;36(1):24-34
pubmed: 19104929
Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013 Jul;3(3):306-12
pubmed: 24116304
JAMA. 2020 Oct 20;324(15):1532-1542
pubmed: 33079153
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017 Feb 03;20:37-40
pubmed: 28275695
Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(22):8701-8712
pubmed: 32966684
PLoS Med. 2021 Jul 16;18(7):e1003705
pubmed: 34270581
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 27;12(7):e0181905
pubmed: 28750015
BMC Med. 2015 Jul 06;13:160
pubmed: 26149722