Cited by 19Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementSex work and related issues

Can human papillomavirus DNA self-sampling be an acceptable and reliable option for cervical cancer screening in female sex workers?

Open access
Wong, Eliza L.Y., Cheung, Annie W.L., Huang, Fenwei, Chor, Josette S.Y.·2018·Cancer Nursing

Abstract

Background The causal relation between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer has enabled HPV self-sampling to be envisaged as a possible screening method. Objectives The aim of this study is to explore the acceptability and reliability of HPV DNA self-sampling as an alternative option for cervical screening among female sex workers. Methods Sixty-eight participants carried out self-sampling for HPV testing, gave a clinician-obtained sample for HPV testing, and a Papanicolaou test. After the samplings, the participants were questioned on the acceptability of the tests. Results Most participants (65.6%) preferred to adopt HPV DNA self-sampling in the future; in particular, those without previous experience of Papanicolaou tests marginally significantly preferred self-sampling (86.7%, P = .055). The overall crude agreement in HPV detection rates between clinician and HPV DNA self-sampling was 85.3% (58/68), with a κ of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.87). The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected samples were 66.7% and 66.1%, respectively, and the positive and negative predicted values were 24.0% and 92.5%, respectively. The prevalence of HPV was slightly higher in self-collected samples (39.7%, 27/68) than in clinician-collected samples (36.8%, 25/68). The participants expressed positive attitudes toward self-sampling but were less confident in their skills of self-sampling compared with clinicians (70.6% versus 91.2%). Conclusions The findings showed tha…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ncc.0000000000000462

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Wong, E. L. Y., Cheung, A. W. L., Huang, F., & Chor, J. S. Y.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Wong, Eliza L.Y.
Venue
Cancer Nursing
Published
2018-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
45-52
ISSN
  • 0162-220X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-9804
OpenAlex
W2576441167
Cited by
19
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, female sex workers, acceptability, test reliability, clinician-collected samples, Pap smear, HPV prevalence, screening adherence
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, DNA, Viral, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Specimen Handling, Reproducibility of Results, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult, Sex Workers, Human Papillomavirus DNA Tests, 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