Acceptability and feasibility of a community based participatory research project comparing cytology and urine HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in YAP, Federated states of Micronesia
Open accessAbstract
Non-invasive, self-collected sampling methods for HPV DNA detection in women, which are reliable, efficient, and acceptable have the potential to address barriers to cervical cancer screening in underserved communities, including low-middle income countries (LMIC) such as the island nation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Urine-based HPV testing has not been rigorously evaluated in clinical trials. A pilot community-based participatory randomized control research project evaluated use of urine HPV testing as a more culturally- and human resource appropriate method of cervical cancer screening in Yap State, FSM. Women participated in a cervical screening intervention using pap vs. urine test (N=217). This manuscript described attitudes about screening feasibility and preferences. Stakeholders and women participants were interviewed (N=23), and a survey also evaluated women's screening preferences (N=217). Qualitative content thematic analysis with multiple coders identified themes from interviews on acceptability and feasibility of screening tests. Women research participants were comfortable with the urine test (95%), despite limitations in some to provide samples. While 82.0% indicated that they felt comfortable with Pap smear, they also preferred a clinician (42%) to do the Pap smear, explaining that they preferred having a trained worker instead of themselves to do tests. Women want to be screened but accessibility remains a challenge. Education and training of professionals and community members alike will improve clinical skills, research capacity, knowledge of screening tests and behaviors including prioritizing HPV screening and testing.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the same sample of Micronesian women, more women preferred a clinician to perform a Pap smear (44.2%) over self-sampling (38.8%).
“Despite higher ratings for urine self-sampling, more women preferred a clinician to perform a Pap smear (44.2%) over self-sampling (38.8%) because they valued the knowledge and expertise of the clinician.”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
The women research participant survey (Results §3.1; page not provided) reports that 44.2% preferred a doctor or nurse to perform the Pap smear, compared with 38.3% who preferred providing their own urine sample—not 38.8%. The focus group findings (Results §3.3; page not provided) link the preference for clinician collection to participants’ confidence in skilled, knowledgeable screeners. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn a sample of Micronesian women, 95% of participants said they were comfortable with the urine test compared with 82% for the Pap smear.
“In a sample of Micronesian women, 95% of participants said they were comfortable with the urine test compared with only 82% for the Pap smear.”
From HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [1]Schiffman M Castle PE Jeronimo J Rodriguez AC Wacholder S Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer Lancet 370 9590 2007 890 907 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61416-0 17826171 · DOI
- [2]World Health Organization WHO Guidelines for Screening and Treatment of Precancerous Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention Geneva 2013 24716265
- [3]Arbyn M Ronco G Anttila A Meijer CJ Poljak M Ogilvie G Koliopoulos G Naucler P Sankaranarayanan R Peto J Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer Vaccine 30 Suppl 5 2012 F88 99 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.095 23199969 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Bosch FX The path to eliminate cervical cancer in the world and the challenges of professional education Vaccine 31 Suppl 5 xi xii 2013 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.006 24331752 · DOI
- [5]Pileggi C Flotta D Bianco A Nobile CG Pavia M Is HPV DNA testing specificity comparable to that of cytological testing in primary cervical cancer screening? Results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Int J Cancer 135 1 2014 166 177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28640 24302411 · DOI
- [9]Skilling VA Hedson J Heckert KA Reichhardt M Luther X Robinett H Koijane J Buenconsejo-Lum LE Creating resource-appropriate breast & cervical cancer standards in the Federated States of Micronesia 2012 CDC National Cancer Conference August 23, 2012 Washington, D.C 2012
- [10]Hernandez BY Wilkens LR Unger ER Steinau M Markowitz L Garvin K Thompson PJ Shvetsov YB O’Dillon K Dunne EF Evaluation of genital self-sampling methods for HPV detection in males J Clin Virol 58 September (1) 2013 168 175 23880161
- [11]Hernandez BY Wilkens LR Zhu X Thompson P McDuffie K Shvetsov YB Kamemoto LE Killeen J Ning L Goodman MT Transmission of human papillomavirus in heterosexual couples Emerg Infect Dis 14 6 2008 888 894 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1406.070616 18507898 PMC2600292 · DOI
- [12]American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee opinion No. 624: cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings Obstet Gynecol 125 2 2015 526 528 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01AOG.0000460763.59152.9e 25611643 · DOI
- [13]Wallerstein N Duran B Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity Am J Public Health 100 Suppl 1 2010 S40 S46 20147663 PMC2837458
- [14]Pinto RM DaSilva SB Penido C Spector AY International participatory research framework: triangulating procedures to build health research capacity in Brazil Health Promot Int 2011 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar090 PMC3733101 22144416 · DOI
- [15]Braun KL Nguyen TT Tanjasiri SP Campbell J Heiney SP Brandt HM Smith SA Blumenthal DS Hargreaves M Coe K Ma GX Kenerson D Patel K Tsark J Hebert JR Operationalization of community-based participatory research principles: assessment of the national cancer institute’s community network programs Am J Public Health 102 6 2012 1195 1203 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300304 22095340 PMC3292685 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences
Nishimura, H., Yeh, P. T., Oguntade, H., Kennedy, C. E., & Narasimhan, M. (2021) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003743 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sy, A. U., Hernandez, B. Y., Tareg, A., Reichhardt, M., & Buenconsejo-Lum, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sy, Angela U.
- Venue
- Cancer Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- Pt B
- Pages
- 283-288
- ISSN
- 1877-7821 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5739880
- OpenAlex
- W2767996557
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cancer Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U58 DP003906, U58 DP000779, CDC U58 DP000976)
- National Cancer Institute
- National Institutes of Health (NCI 3P30CA071789-16S3)
- 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
- cervical cancer screening, Pap smear, HPV testing, screening acceptability, screening feasibility, screening preferences, self-collected samples, underserved populations, low-middle income countries, Yap State, community-based participatory research, barriers to screening, health professions education
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, DNA, Viral, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Micronesia, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaginal Smears, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Community-Based Participatory Research, 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