Cargando…
The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland
Most women who develop cancer have not been screened regularly. One in four women in Scotland, is overdue for cervical screening. Aim was to assess the impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening is overdue. A prospective cohort study including all women whose scr...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36161116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101947 |
_version_ | 1784795678279467008 |
---|---|
author | Wedisinghe, L. Sasieni, P. Currie, H. Baxter, G. |
author_facet | Wedisinghe, L. Sasieni, P. Currie, H. Baxter, G. |
author_sort | Wedisinghe, L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Most women who develop cancer have not been screened regularly. One in four women in Scotland, is overdue for cervical screening. Aim was to assess the impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening is overdue. A prospective cohort study including all women whose screening was overdue, aged 30–60 years in Dumfries and Galloway in 2012. Potentially eligible women (n = 4146) were identified split into six groups. Women aged 30–55 years were allocated to three different groups. Group 1 (letter, n = 1246), Group 2 (letter and kit, n = 221), Group 3 (letter, n = 2031). Women aged 56–60 years were allocated to: Group 4 (letter, n = 292), Group 5 (letter and kit, n = 292) and Group 6 (control, n = 64). Women who self-collected a vaginal sample were requested to complete a questionnaire. The percentages of women responding were 24 % (21–26), 32 % (25–38), 16 % (14–18), 15 % (11–20) and 12 % (9–17) in groups 1 to 5 respectively, compared with 3 % (0–11) among controls. A significantly higher number of women (n = 383, 10 % of 3815) opted for self-sampling in comparison with undergoing a cervical screening test (CST) at the GP practice (n = 197, 5 %, x(2) = 59.0, p < 0.0001). The Evalyn® Brush was well accepted (218/313 = 70 %) by those who requested self-sampling. Almost all (265/272 = 97 %) women who self-collected a vaginal sample said that if they had the option of self-sampling, they would regularly participate in future cervical screening. Offering more flexible screening options, self-sampling in particular, appears to increase cervical screening participation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9502330 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95023302022-09-24 The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland Wedisinghe, L. Sasieni, P. Currie, H. Baxter, G. Prev Med Rep Regular Article Most women who develop cancer have not been screened regularly. One in four women in Scotland, is overdue for cervical screening. Aim was to assess the impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening is overdue. A prospective cohort study including all women whose screening was overdue, aged 30–60 years in Dumfries and Galloway in 2012. Potentially eligible women (n = 4146) were identified split into six groups. Women aged 30–55 years were allocated to three different groups. Group 1 (letter, n = 1246), Group 2 (letter and kit, n = 221), Group 3 (letter, n = 2031). Women aged 56–60 years were allocated to: Group 4 (letter, n = 292), Group 5 (letter and kit, n = 292) and Group 6 (control, n = 64). Women who self-collected a vaginal sample were requested to complete a questionnaire. The percentages of women responding were 24 % (21–26), 32 % (25–38), 16 % (14–18), 15 % (11–20) and 12 % (9–17) in groups 1 to 5 respectively, compared with 3 % (0–11) among controls. A significantly higher number of women (n = 383, 10 % of 3815) opted for self-sampling in comparison with undergoing a cervical screening test (CST) at the GP practice (n = 197, 5 %, x(2) = 59.0, p < 0.0001). The Evalyn® Brush was well accepted (218/313 = 70 %) by those who requested self-sampling. Almost all (265/272 = 97 %) women who self-collected a vaginal sample said that if they had the option of self-sampling, they would regularly participate in future cervical screening. Offering more flexible screening options, self-sampling in particular, appears to increase cervical screening participation. 2022-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9502330/ /pubmed/36161116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101947 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Regular Article Wedisinghe, L. Sasieni, P. Currie, H. Baxter, G. The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title | The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title_full | The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title_fullStr | The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title_short | The impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland |
title_sort | impact of offering multiple cervical screening options to women whose screening was overdue in dumfries and galloway, scotland |
topic | Regular Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502330/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36161116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101947 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wedisinghel theimpactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT sasienip theimpactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT currieh theimpactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT baxterg theimpactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT wedisinghel impactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT sasienip impactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT currieh impactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland AT baxterg impactofofferingmultiplecervicalscreeningoptionstowomenwhosescreeningwasoverdueindumfriesandgallowayscotland |