Cargando…

HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Participation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tranberg, Mette, Bech, Bodil Hammer, Blaakær, Jan, Jensen, Jørgen Skov, Svanholm, Hans, Andersen, Berit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197540
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S164826
_version_ 1783350876566454272
author Tranberg, Mette
Bech, Bodil Hammer
Blaakær, Jan
Jensen, Jørgen Skov
Svanholm, Hans
Andersen, Berit
author_facet Tranberg, Mette
Bech, Bodil Hammer
Blaakær, Jan
Jensen, Jørgen Skov
Svanholm, Hans
Andersen, Berit
author_sort Tranberg, Mette
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Participation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offering self-sampling influence the participation rate equally. METHODS: The study was based on registry data that were applied to data from a randomized controlled trial (n=9,791) measuring how offering HPV self-sampling affected screening participation. The women received either 1) a self-sampling kit mailed directly to their homes (directly mailed group); 2) an invitation to order the kit (opt-in group); or 3) a standard second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). The participation data were linked to registries containing socioeconomic information. RESULTS: Women in the directly mailed group participated significantly more than women in the control group, regardless of their socioeconomic status, but the largest effects were observed in Western immigrants (participation difference [PD]=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.0%) and social welfare recipients (PD=15.2%, 95% CI=9.7%–20.6%). Compared with the control group, opt-in self-sampling only had an insignificant effect on participation among women who were immigrants, retired, or less educated. Western immigrants had a significantly higher increase in participation than native Danish women when kits were mailed directly compared with the opt-in strategy (PD=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.2% and PD=5.5%, 95% CI=2.9%–8.1%, respectively, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: All socioeconomic groups benefited from the directly mailed strategy in terms of higher screening participation, but Western immigrants and lower socioeconomic groups seemed to benefit the most. Immigrants and some lower socioeconomic groups only had insignificant benefits of opt-in self-sampling. The directly mailed strategy might be preferable to opt-in self-sampling because it ensures that ethnic minority groups obtain benefits of introducing HPV self-sampling in an organized cervical cancer screening program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6112594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61125942018-09-07 HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial Tranberg, Mette Bech, Bodil Hammer Blaakær, Jan Jensen, Jørgen Skov Svanholm, Hans Andersen, Berit Clin Epidemiol Original Research BACKGROUND: Participation in cervical cancer screening varies by socioeconomic status. The aims were to assess if offering human papilloma virus (HPV) self-sampling kits has an effect on screening participation among various socioeconomic groups and to determine if two invitation strategies for offering self-sampling influence the participation rate equally. METHODS: The study was based on registry data that were applied to data from a randomized controlled trial (n=9,791) measuring how offering HPV self-sampling affected screening participation. The women received either 1) a self-sampling kit mailed directly to their homes (directly mailed group); 2) an invitation to order the kit (opt-in group); or 3) a standard second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). The participation data were linked to registries containing socioeconomic information. RESULTS: Women in the directly mailed group participated significantly more than women in the control group, regardless of their socioeconomic status, but the largest effects were observed in Western immigrants (participation difference [PD]=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.0%) and social welfare recipients (PD=15.2%, 95% CI=9.7%–20.6%). Compared with the control group, opt-in self-sampling only had an insignificant effect on participation among women who were immigrants, retired, or less educated. Western immigrants had a significantly higher increase in participation than native Danish women when kits were mailed directly compared with the opt-in strategy (PD=18.1%, 95% CI=10.2%–26.2% and PD=5.5%, 95% CI=2.9%–8.1%, respectively, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: All socioeconomic groups benefited from the directly mailed strategy in terms of higher screening participation, but Western immigrants and lower socioeconomic groups seemed to benefit the most. Immigrants and some lower socioeconomic groups only had insignificant benefits of opt-in self-sampling. The directly mailed strategy might be preferable to opt-in self-sampling because it ensures that ethnic minority groups obtain benefits of introducing HPV self-sampling in an organized cervical cancer screening program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262. Registered February 10, 2016. Dove Medical Press 2018-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6112594/ /pubmed/30197540 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S164826 Text en © 2018 Tranberg et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Tranberg, Mette
Bech, Bodil Hammer
Blaakær, Jan
Jensen, Jørgen Skov
Svanholm, Hans
Andersen, Berit
HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title_full HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title_short HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
title_sort hpv self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: the effect of different invitation strategies in various socioeconomic groups – a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197540
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S164826
work_keys_str_mv AT tranbergmette hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bechbodilhammer hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT blaakærjan hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jensenjørgenskov hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT svanholmhans hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT andersenberit hpvselfsamplingincervicalcancerscreeningtheeffectofdifferentinvitationstrategiesinvarioussocioeconomicgroupsarandomizedcontrolledtrial