4.1 Article

Acceptability of unsupervised HPV self-sampling using written instructions

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 208-213

出版社

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/096914130601300409

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The study measured the acceptability of self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in the context of cervical cancer screening. Women carried out self-sampling unsupervised, using a written instruction sheet. Setting Participants were women attending either a family planning clinic or a primary care trust for routine cervical screening. Methods Women (n=902) carried out self-sampling for HPV testing and then a clinician did a routine cervical smear and HPV test. Immediately after having the two tests, participants completed a measure of acceptability for both tests, and answered questions about ease of using the instruction sheet and willingness to use self-sampling in the future. Results The majority of women found self-sampling more acceptable than the clinician-administered test, but there was a lack of confidence that the test had been done correctly. Significant demographic differences in attitudes were found, with married women having more favourable attitudes towards self-sampling than single women, and Asian women having more negative attitudes than women in other ethnic groups. Intention to use self-sampling in the future was very high across all demographic groups. Conclusion Self-sampling for HPV testing was highly acceptable in this large and demographically diverse sample, and women were able to carry out the test alone, using simple written instructions. Consistent with previous studies, women were concerned about doing the test properly and this issue will need to be addressed if self-sampling is introduced. More work is needed to see whether the demographic differences we found are robust and to identify reasons for lower acceptability among single women and those from Asian background.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据