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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bansil, Pooja, Wittet, Scott, Lim, Jeanette L, Winkler, Jennifer L, Paul, Proma, Jeronimo, Jose
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