Cited by 105Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Assessing the acceptability of self-sampling for HPV among Haitian immigrant women: CBPR in action

Barbee, Lindley, Kobetz, Erin, Menard, Janelle, Cook, Nicole, Blanco, Jenny, Barton, Betsy, Auguste, Pascale, McKenzie, Nathalie·2010·Cancer Causes & Control

Abstract

Objective To determine whether pairing self-sampling for HPV with community health workers (CHWs) is a culturally acceptable method for cervical cancer screening among Haitian immigrant women residing in Little Haiti, the predominately Haitian neighborhood in Miami, FL. Methods As part of a larger, ongoing community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiative in Little Haiti, Haitian CHWs recruited 246 eligible women to this study. Participants provided self-collected cervical specimens for HPV testing and answered a series of questions about their experience with self-sampling for HPV. Results The vast majority of women (97.6%) was comfortable using the self-sampler at home, would recommend this screening method to their friends and/or family members (98.4%), and described the sampler as easy to use (95.1%). Additionally, 97% of all self-collected specimens were deemed adequate for HPV testing. Conclusions When paired with CHWs, who are of Haitian descent and well respected in Little Haiti, self-sampling is a highly acceptable method of cervical screening for Haitian women in this ethnic enclave. This approach addresses critical access barriers, including poverty, language difficulties, and sociocultural concerns about modesty, that may similarly affect Pap smear utilization among other immigrant or medically underserved population sub-groups. Coupled with generally positive reviews of the device, the low rate of insufficient specimens for testing suggests that this devic…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10552-009-9474-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barbee, L., Kobetz, E., Menard, J., Cook, N., Blanco, J., Barton, B., Auguste, P., & McKenzie, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Health Choice Network (US)
  • Haitian American Association Against Cancer (US)
Corresponding author
Kobetz, Erin
Venue
Cancer Causes & Control
Published
2009-11-27
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
421-431
ISSN
  • 0957-5243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7225
OpenAlex
W2058373792
Cited by
105
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Causes & Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
HPV self-sampling, cervical cancer screening, community health workers, HPV testing, specimen adequacy, access barriers, socio-cultural barriers, community-based participatory research
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Emigration and Immigration, Female, Florida, Haiti, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, DNA Probes, HPV, Health Behavior, Papillomaviridae, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review