Cargando…

Experiences and preferences towards collecting a urine and cervicovaginal self-sample among women attending a colposcopy clinic

The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening is hampered by low attendance rates. The collection of a urine sample is hypothesized to engage non-attenders in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate experiences of women on urine collection and cervicovagi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schaafsma, Mirte, van den Helder, Rianne, Bleeker, Maaike C.G., Rosier-van Dunné, Fleur, van der Avoort, Irene A.M., Steenbergen, Renske D.M., van Trommel, Nienke E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8897716/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35256928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749
Descripción
Sumario:The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening is hampered by low attendance rates. The collection of a urine sample is hypothesized to engage non-attenders in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate experiences of women on urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling in a home-based setting and preferences for future cervical cancer screening. This study included 140 women, with a median age of 40 years, who were planned for a large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) procedure. All women collected a urine sample using conventional urine cups and a cervicovaginal self-sample prior to the LLETZ in a home-based setting. Following sample collection, women filled in a questionnaire. Results showed that the instructions of urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling were considered clear (95%, 95%CI: 88–98; 92%, 95%CI: 83–96, respectively). Women considered urine collection compared to cervicovaginal self-sampling to be more acceptable (p < 0.001), and to provide more reliable results (p < 0.001). The three highest reported preferred sampling methods for future cervical cancer screening were: urine collection (n = 39, 28%, 95%CI: 19–39), clinician-taken cervical scrape (n = 32, 23%, 95%CI: 15–34), and equal preference for urine collection, clinician-taken cervical scrape and cervicovaginal self-sampling (n = 30, 21%, 95%CI: 14–32). In conclusion, urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling are acceptable sampling methods, considered easy to collect in a home-based setting, and moreover, considered trustworthy. Although these results are promising, more research is required to determine if urine collection also lowers the barrier for non-attendees and, thereby, increases the attendance rates of cervical cancer screening.