Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening With Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 11 2023
28 11 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
28
05
2024
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
28
11
2023
entrez:
28
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US. To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown). Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022. Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506). The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group. The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%]). Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38015219
pii: 2812323
doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.21471
pmc: PMC10685881
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04679675']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1971-1981Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA240375
Pays : United States
Références
Prev Med. 2018 Nov;116:51-59
pubmed: 30149037
Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Nov;122:106960
pubmed: 36241145
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24(2):90-101
pubmed: 32243306
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 May 4;97(9):675-83
pubmed: 15870438
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jan 4;5(1):e2143582
pubmed: 35040970
Br J Cancer. 2023 Mar;128(5):805-813
pubmed: 36517552
Prev Med. 2022 Jan;154:106900
pubmed: 34861338
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jun;127:104375
pubmed: 32361328
Prev Med. 2021 Oct;151:106596
pubmed: 34217415
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Sep;70(5):321-346
pubmed: 32729638
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):229-238
pubmed: 30658933
BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147
pubmed: 25956159
BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4823
pubmed: 30518635
Am J Manag Care. 2003 Nov;9(11):745-55
pubmed: 14626472
Prev Med. 2001 Jun;32(6):482-91
pubmed: 11394952
J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9
pubmed: 1607900
Ann Behav Med. 2000 Summer;22(3):223-8
pubmed: 11126467
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2244343
pubmed: 36449291
Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Jan;64:77-87
pubmed: 29113956
J Med Screen. 2020 Sep;27(3):146-156
pubmed: 31744374
Br J Cancer. 2022 Nov;127(10):1816-1826
pubmed: 35995936
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Nov 1;2(11):e1914729
pubmed: 31693128
J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):199-204
pubmed: 20054095
Am J Public Health. 1995 Jun;85(6):791-4
pubmed: 7762711
JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674-686
pubmed: 30140884
Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Dec;71(3):428-30
pubmed: 9887244
Prev Med. 2022 Nov;164:107307
pubmed: 36270434
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Mar;28(3):384-392
pubmed: 30481121