Cited by 72Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Indigenous Community in Guatemala

Open access
Gottschlich, Anna, Rivera-Andrade, Alvaro, Grajeda, Edwin, Alvarez, Christian, Mendoza Montano, Carlos, Meza, Rafael·2017·Journal of Global Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Cervical cancer rates in Latin America are higher than those in developed countries, likely because of the lower prevalence of screening. Specifically, less than 40% of women in Guatemala are regularly screened and even fewer women are screened in indigenous communities. Current screening strategies—Pap smears and visual inspection with acetic acid—might not be the most effective methods for controlling cancer in these settings. We thus investigated the potential of self-collection of cervical samples with testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) to help prevent cervical cancer in an indigenous community in Guatemala. Patients and Methods: A community representative random sample of 202 indigenous women age 18 to 60 years residing in Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala, were surveyed to assess knowledge of and risk factors for HPV and cervical cancer. Women were then invited to self-collect a cervical sample using HerSwab collection kits to assess the prevalence of HPV and the acceptability of self-sampling. Results: Of 202 women who completed the survey, 178 (89%) provided a self-sample. In all, 79% of these women found the test comfortable, 91% found the test easy to use, and 100% reported they were willing to perform the test periodically as a screening method. Thirty-one samples (17%) were positive for at least one of 13 high-risk HPV types, and eight (4.5%) were positive for HPV 16/18. Conclusion: HPV testing by using self-collected samples was well accepted, suggesting that it is a plausible modality for cervical cancer screening in indigenous communities. Further studies are needed to assess rates of follow-up after a positive test and to determine whether these findings extend to other indigenous and nonindigenous communities in Guatemala and Latin America.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jgo.2016.005629

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The finding that women in rural western Kenya had positive expectations of and personal experiences with HPV self-sampling is consistent with other studies done in Africa and Asia.

    “which is consistent to other studies done in Africa and Asia [18, 19, 33–35].”

    From Perspectives of women participating in a cervical cancer screening campaign with community-based HPV self-sampling in rural western Kenya: a qualitative study (2019) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion reports high acceptability and positive experiences with HPV self-collection, and says its results are consistent with previous studies in Asia and Africa. But this source’s own study was conducted in Guatemala, not Africa or Asia; it also does not assess women in rural western Kenya. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The finding on pelvic exam as a barrier to screening is consistent with other studies done in Africa and Asia which showed concerns around speculum use, embarrassment, and reluctance to have a male provider perform the exam.

    “The findings on pelvic exam as a barrier to screening is consistent with other studies done in Africa and Asia [18, 19, 33–35] which showed concerns around speculum use, embarrassment, and reluctance to have a male provider perform the exam [37–39].”

    From Perspectives of women participating in a cervical cancer screening campaign with community-based HPV self-sampling in rural western Kenya: a qualitative study (2019) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results (Self-Collection Acceptability; page unavailable) report that most participants preferred screening at home to screening by a physician. Our copy does not say why: searches for speculum use, embarrassment, and reluctance to see a male provider found no passage addressing those concerns. The Discussion’s comparison with studies in Africa and Asia concerns acceptance of self-screening, not those specific barriers. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]American Cancer Society Global Cancer Facts & Figures: 2nd Edition. 2008 http://oralcancerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/acspc-027766.pdf
  2. [16]World Health Organization: WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. 2013. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/94830/1/9789241548694_eng.pdf 24716265
  3. [21]PATH: PATH announces new cervical cancer test for low-resource countries: CareHPV, a rapid, highly sensitive DNA test, could revolutionize cervical cancer screening where it is needed most. Press release: Seattle, November 28, 2012. http://www.path.org/news/press-room/147/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gottschlich, A., Rivera-Andrade, A., Grajeda, E., Alvarez, C., Mendoza Montano, C., & Meza, R.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Anna Gottschlich, Christian Alvarez, and Rafael Meza, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Alvaro Rivera-Andrade and Carlos Mendoza Montano, Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama; Carlos Mendoza Montano, Universidad Mariano Galvez de Guatemala; Edwin Grajeda, Universidad Rafael Landivar, Guatemala City, Guatemala; and Alvaro Rivera-Andrade, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Corresponding author
Meza, Rafael
Venue
Journal of Global Oncology
Published
2017-10
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
444-454
ISSN
2378-9506 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2582185508
Cited by
72
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7
FWCI
5.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Global Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01CA182915, T32CA083654)
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
human papillomavirus, HPV self-sampling, cervical cancer screening, indigenous women, acceptability, high-risk HPV prevalence, HPV 16/18, cervical cancer prevention, Santiago Atitlán, Guatemala

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