The Acceptability of Self-Collected Samples for HPV Testing vs. the Pap Test as Alternatives in Cervical Cancer Screening
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Women in low-resource settings find pelvic exams to be embarrassing, painful, and uncomfortable and therefore prefer the self-sampling option.
“There is evidence that women in low-resource settings find pelvic exams to be embarrassing, painful, and uncomfortable; therefore, they prefer the self-sampling option [9].”
From A community‐based, cross‐sectional study of hr<scp>HPV DNA</scp> self‐sampling‐based cervical cancer screening in rural Karnataka, India (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fontham, E. T. H., Wolf, A. M. D., Church, T. R., Etzioni, R., Flowers, C. R., Herzig, A., Guerra, C. E., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., Walter, L. C., et al. (2020) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21628 · Cited by 968 · see citing works
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
Bansil, P., Wittet, S., Lim, J. L., Winkler, J. L., Paul, P., & Jeronimo, J. (2014) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-596 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Adsul, P., Srinivas, V., Gowda, S., Nayaka, S., Pramathesh, R., Chandrappa, K., Khan, A., Jayakrishna, P., & Madhivanan, P. (2019) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12859 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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