4.7 Article

Increasing participation in cervical screening by targeting long-term nonattenders: Randomized health services study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 145, Issue 11, Pages 3033-3039

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32374

Keywords

HPV; cervical cancer; screening; self-sampling; eHealth

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High screening participation in the population is essential for optimal prevention of cervical cancer. Offering a high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) self-test has previously been shown to increase participation. In this randomized health services study, we evaluated four strategies with regard to participation. Women who had not attended organized cervical screening in 10 years were eligible for inclusion. This group comprised 16,437 out of 413,487 resident women ages 33-60 (<4% of the screening target group). Among these 16,437 long-term nonattenders, 8,000 women were randomized to either (i) a HPV self-sampling kit sent directly; (ii) an invitation to order a HPV self-sampling kit using a new open source eHealth web application; (iii) an invitation to call a coordinating midwife with questions and concerns; or (iv) the standard annual renewed invitation letter with prebooked appointment time (routine practice). Overall participation, by arm, was (i) 18.7%; (ii) 10.7%; (iii) 1.9%; and (iv) 1.7%. The relative risk of participation in Arm 1 was 11.0 (95% CI 7.8-15.5), 6.3 (95% CI 4.4-8.9) in Arm 2 and 1.1 (95% CI 0.7-1.7) in Arm 3, compared to Arm 4. High-risk HPV prevalence among women who returned kits in study Arms 1 and 2 was 12.2%. In total, 63 women were directly referred to colposcopy from Arms 1 and 2; of which, 43 (68.3%) attended and 17 had a high-grade cervical lesion (CIN2+) in histology (39.5%). Targeting long-term nonattending women with sending or offering the opportunity to order self-sampling kits further increased the participation in an organized screening program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available