Cargando…

Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador

Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vega Crespo, Bernardo, Neira, Vivian Alejandra, Ortíz S, José, Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth, López, Diana, Gómez, Andrea, Vicuña, María José, Mejía, Jorge, Benoy, Ina, Carreño, Tesifón Parrón, Verhoeven, Veronique
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9498379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36141226
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091614
_version_ 1784794744154488832
author Vega Crespo, Bernardo
Neira, Vivian Alejandra
Ortíz S, José
Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth
López, Diana
Gómez, Andrea
Vicuña, María José
Mejía, Jorge
Benoy, Ina
Carreño, Tesifón Parrón
Verhoeven, Veronique
author_facet Vega Crespo, Bernardo
Neira, Vivian Alejandra
Ortíz S, José
Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth
López, Diana
Gómez, Andrea
Vicuña, María José
Mejía, Jorge
Benoy, Ina
Carreño, Tesifón Parrón
Verhoeven, Veronique
author_sort Vega Crespo, Bernardo
collection PubMed
description Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67–52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79–40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44–18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83–65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03–0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0–0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07–0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01–0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71–9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9498379
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94983792022-09-23 Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador Vega Crespo, Bernardo Neira, Vivian Alejandra Ortíz S, José Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth López, Diana Gómez, Andrea Vicuña, María José Mejía, Jorge Benoy, Ina Carreño, Tesifón Parrón Verhoeven, Veronique Healthcare (Basel) Article Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67–52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79–40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44–18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83–65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03–0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0–0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07–0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01–0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71–9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods. MDPI 2022-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9498379/ /pubmed/36141226 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091614 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Vega Crespo, Bernardo
Neira, Vivian Alejandra
Ortíz S, José
Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth
López, Diana
Gómez, Andrea
Vicuña, María José
Mejía, Jorge
Benoy, Ina
Carreño, Tesifón Parrón
Verhoeven, Veronique
Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title_full Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title_fullStr Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title_short Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
title_sort evaluation of urine and vaginal self-sampling versus clinician-based sampling for cervical cancer screening: a field comparison of the acceptability of three sampling tests in a rural community of cuenca, ecuador
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9498379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36141226
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091614
work_keys_str_mv AT vegacrespobernardo evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT neiravivianalejandra evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT ortizsjose evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT maldonadorengelruth evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT lopezdiana evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT gomezandrea evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT vicunamariajose evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT mejiajorge evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT benoyina evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT carrenotesifonparron evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador
AT verhoevenveronique evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador