Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador.

HPV acceptability clinician sampling self-sampling urine sampling vaginal sampling

Journal

Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Aug 2022
Historique:
received: 23 07 2022
revised: 11 08 2022
accepted: 22 08 2022
entrez: 23 9 2022
pubmed: 24 9 2022
medline: 24 9 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67-52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79-40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44-18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83-65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03-0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0-0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07-0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01-0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71-9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36141226
pii: healthcare10091614
doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091614
pmc: PMC9498379
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad
ID : SI-2020-01-82

Références

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 12;19(8):
pubmed: 35457487
Chin J Cancer Res. 2020 Dec 31;32(6):720-728
pubmed: 33446995
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Jan;152(1):103-111
pubmed: 33128778
Curr Oncol. 2022 Jan 26;29(2):516-533
pubmed: 35200547
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Apr;30(4):661-668
pubmed: 33514604
BMC Cancer. 2015 Nov 04;15:849
pubmed: 26536865
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;99:452-457
pubmed: 32738484
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;30(5):e76
pubmed: 31328458
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Feb;93(1):56-61
pubmed: 28100761
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 08;14(6):
pubmed: 35326530
Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2016 Jun;50 Spec:68-73
pubmed: 27384278
Arch Public Health. 2021 Aug 30;79(1):155
pubmed: 34462004
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 10;8:CD008587
pubmed: 28796882
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016 Sep;9(9):766-71
pubmed: 27417431
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 29;70(4):109-113
pubmed: 33507893
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Jan;152(1):7-11
pubmed: 33128771
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Feb;30(2):245-247
pubmed: 33547144
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 14;13(2):e0185332
pubmed: 29444073
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Int J Womens Health. 2015 Nov 04;7:883-8
pubmed: 26604830
Prev Med Rep. 2022 Feb 28;26:101749
pubmed: 35256928
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Jul;4:1-10
pubmed: 30084698
Prev Med. 2004 Jul;39(1):91-8
pubmed: 15207990
J Pathol Transl Med. 2020 Jan;54(1):112-118
pubmed: 31964113
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Dec;5(4):541-2
pubmed: 24454995
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Aug 9;19(1):108
pubmed: 31399092
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 May;149(2):219-224
pubmed: 32037539
Can Fam Physician. 2017 Aug;63(8):597-601
pubmed: 28807952
J Med Screen. 2022 Sep;29(3):194-202
pubmed: 35389282
Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):591-603
pubmed: 32007142
Malawi Med J. 2018 Jun;30(2):61-66
pubmed: 30627330
Prev Med. 2021 Mar;144:106354
pubmed: 33309871
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020 Jul;29(7):971-979
pubmed: 32212991

Auteurs

Bernardo Vega Crespo (B)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.

Vivian Alejandra Neira (VA)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad del Azuay UDA, Cuenca 010104, Ecuador.

José Ortíz S (J)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.

Ruth Maldonado-Rengel (R)

Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja UTPL Loja Ecuador, Loja 1101608, Ecuador.
Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Morfológicas, Universidad de La Frontera UFRO, Temuco 4811230, Chile.

Diana López (D)

Facultad de Medicina, Universidad del Azuay UDA, Cuenca 010104, Ecuador.

Andrea Gómez (A)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.

María José Vicuña (MJ)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.

Jorge Mejía (J)

Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010203, Ecuador.

Ina Benoy (I)

AMBIOR, Laboratory for Cell Biology and Histology, University of Antwerp, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.

Tesifón Parrón Carreño (TP)

Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Neurociencias, Universidad de Almería UAL, 04120 Almería, Spain.

Veronique Verhoeven (V)

Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH