Cargando…
Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach
BACKGROUND: Vaginal self-sampling with HPV-DNA tests is a promising primary screening method for cervical cancer. However, women’s experiences, concerns and the acceptability of such tests in low-resource settings remain unknown. METHODS: In India, Nicaragua, and Uganda, a mixed-method design was us...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-596 |
_version_ | 1782321543965048832 |
---|---|
author | Bansil, Pooja Wittet, Scott Lim, Jeanette L Winkler, Jennifer L Paul, Proma Jeronimo, Jose |
author_facet | Bansil, Pooja Wittet, Scott Lim, Jeanette L Winkler, Jennifer L Paul, Proma Jeronimo, Jose |
author_sort | Bansil, Pooja |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Vaginal self-sampling with HPV-DNA tests is a promising primary screening method for cervical cancer. However, women’s experiences, concerns and the acceptability of such tests in low-resource settings remain unknown. METHODS: In India, Nicaragua, and Uganda, a mixed-method design was used to collect data from surveys (N = 3,863), qualitative interviews (N = 72; 20 providers and 52 women) and focus groups (N = 30 women) on women’s and providers’ experiences with self-sampling, women’s opinions of sampling at home, and their future needs. RESULTS: Among surveyed women, 90% provided a self- collected sample. Of these, 75% reported it was easy, although 52% were initially concerned about hurting themselves and 24% were worried about not getting a good sample. Most surveyed women preferred self-sampling (78%). However it was not clear if they responded to the privacy of self-sampling or the convenience of avoiding a pelvic examination, or both. In follow-up interviews, most women reported that they didn’t mind self-sampling, but many preferred to have a provider collect the vaginal sample. Most women also preferred clinic-based screening (as opposed to home-based self-sampling), because the sample could be collected by a provider, women could receive treatment if needed, and the clinic was sanitary and provided privacy. Self-sampling acceptability was higher when providers prepared women through education, allowed women to examine the collection brush, and were present during the self-collection process. Among survey respondents, aids that would facilitate self-sampling in the future were: staff help (53%), additional images in the illustrated instructions (31%), and a chance to practice beforehand with a doll/model (26%). CONCLUSION: Self-and vaginal-sampling are widely acceptable among women in low-resource settings. Providers have a unique opportunity to educate and prepare women for self-sampling and be flexible in accommodating women’s preference for self-sampling. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4061776 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40617762014-06-19 Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach Bansil, Pooja Wittet, Scott Lim, Jeanette L Winkler, Jennifer L Paul, Proma Jeronimo, Jose BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Vaginal self-sampling with HPV-DNA tests is a promising primary screening method for cervical cancer. However, women’s experiences, concerns and the acceptability of such tests in low-resource settings remain unknown. METHODS: In India, Nicaragua, and Uganda, a mixed-method design was used to collect data from surveys (N = 3,863), qualitative interviews (N = 72; 20 providers and 52 women) and focus groups (N = 30 women) on women’s and providers’ experiences with self-sampling, women’s opinions of sampling at home, and their future needs. RESULTS: Among surveyed women, 90% provided a self- collected sample. Of these, 75% reported it was easy, although 52% were initially concerned about hurting themselves and 24% were worried about not getting a good sample. Most surveyed women preferred self-sampling (78%). However it was not clear if they responded to the privacy of self-sampling or the convenience of avoiding a pelvic examination, or both. In follow-up interviews, most women reported that they didn’t mind self-sampling, but many preferred to have a provider collect the vaginal sample. Most women also preferred clinic-based screening (as opposed to home-based self-sampling), because the sample could be collected by a provider, women could receive treatment if needed, and the clinic was sanitary and provided privacy. Self-sampling acceptability was higher when providers prepared women through education, allowed women to examine the collection brush, and were present during the self-collection process. Among survey respondents, aids that would facilitate self-sampling in the future were: staff help (53%), additional images in the illustrated instructions (31%), and a chance to practice beforehand with a doll/model (26%). CONCLUSION: Self-and vaginal-sampling are widely acceptable among women in low-resource settings. Providers have a unique opportunity to educate and prepare women for self-sampling and be flexible in accommodating women’s preference for self-sampling. BioMed Central 2014-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4061776/ /pubmed/24927941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-596 Text en Copyright © 2014 Bansil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bansil, Pooja Wittet, Scott Lim, Jeanette L Winkler, Jennifer L Paul, Proma Jeronimo, Jose Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title | Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title_full | Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title_fullStr | Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title_full_unstemmed | Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title_short | Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
title_sort | acceptability of self-collection sampling for hpv-dna testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-596 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bansilpooja acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach AT wittetscott acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach AT limjeanettel acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach AT winklerjenniferl acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach AT paulproma acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach AT jeronimojose acceptabilityofselfcollectionsamplingforhpvdnatestinginlowresourcesettingsamixedmethodsapproach |