Cited by 208Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

The Acceptability of Self-Collected Samples for HPV Testing vs. the Pap Test as Alternatives in Cervical Cancer Screening

Dzuba, Ilana G., Díaz, Elsa Yunes, Allen, Betania, Leonard, Yvonne Flores, Lazcano Ponce, Eduardo C., Shah, Keerti V., Bishai, David, Lorincz, Attila +4 more·2002·Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine

Abstract

Objective To explore the acceptability of the self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in comparison with that of the Pap test. Methods The study population consisted of 1069 women 20 years and older who were eligible for coverage through the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS). These women were randomly selected among participants in a larger study to evaluate the use of HPV testing as an alternative in cervical cancer screening. All participants provided a self-collected vaginal sample for HPV testing according to explicit instructions and underwent a Pap test. Afterwards, each woman was interviewed about her experience and opinion regarding the two procedures. Acceptability was measured by a calculated score based on discomfort, pain, embarrassment, privacy, perception of personal treatment during the Pap test, and understanding of how to perform the self-sampling method. Results Ninety-three percent of women experienced sufficient privacy with the Pap test, whereas 98% of women reported that privacy with the self-sampling procedure was acceptable. The Pap test consistently provoked more discomfort, pain, and embarrassment than self-sampling. Sixty-eight percent of the women who indicated a test preference chose self-sampling. Preference for this method was positively associated with monthly household income. Women reported a preference for self-sampling because it is more comfortable (71.2%) and causes less embarrassment (55.8%). Conclusio…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/152460902753668466

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dzuba, I. G., Díaz, E. Y., Allen, B., Leonard, Y. F., Lazcano Ponce, E. C., Shah, K. V., Bishai, D., Lorincz, A., Ferris, D., Turnbull, B., Hernández Avila, M., & Salmerón, J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health of Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
  • Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (MX)
  • Digene Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
  • Augusta University (US)
  • Mexican Social Security Institute (MX)
Venue
Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine
Published
2002-04
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
265-275
ISSN
1524-6094 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998228387
Cited by
208
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Women s Health & Gender-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
HPV self-sampling, cervical cancer screening, Pap smear, self-collected vaginal samples, patient acceptability, privacy, screening uptake, household income, women's health
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Mexico, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, Patient Satisfaction, Papillomaviridae

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