PreprintCited by 0Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Performance and Acceptability of Self- Versus Clinician-Collected Swabs for Testing of High-Risk HPV DNA among Women in Mysore, India: Diagnostic Study

Madhivanan, Purnima, Nishimura, Holly, Ravi, Kavitha, Pope, Benjamin, Srinivas, Vijaya, Krupp, Karl, Jaykrishna, Poornima, Arun, Anjali·2020

Abstract

Objective: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling for HPV testing as compared to clinician-collected sample in a community-based setting in rural Mysore among asymptomatic women. Design: Cross-sectional Study Setting: Rural communities in Mysore, India Population: Women aged over 30 years eligible for cervical cancer screening Methods: Cervical cancer screening was conducted using mobile medical clinics in community based settings. Women self-collected vaginal samples followed by a clinical exam and sample collection for assessing high-risk HPV DNA. Summary statistics were calculated on a range of sociodemographic and health behavior variables. Main Outcome Measures: Measures of sensitivity, specificity, concordance with physician-collected specimens were calculated. Five measures of acceptability (feeling of caring, privacy, embarrassment, genital discomfort, and genital pain) Results: Median age of the respondents was 39 years. The largest percentage of respondents (41.7%, n=50) had a secondary education or above and were married (87.5%, n=105). Most respondents (57.1%, n=68), had never been screened for cervical cancer. The self-collected specimen for HPV DNA had higher specificity (98.1%; 95% CI: 95.5, 100) than it did sensitivity (66.7%; 95% CI: 42.8, 90.6). For all measures of acceptability, the self-collected mean was significantly higher than the clinician-collected mean. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that self-collected sampling performed just as well as clinician-collected samples to screen for HPV DNA. Self-collection was preferred by women living in rural communities, especially when the instructions on collection are provided in a user-friendly, non-judgmental manner.

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 · 10.22541/au.159932495.53321090

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.

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Madhivanan, P., Nishimura, H., Ravi, K., Pope, B., Srinivas, V., Krupp, K., Jaykrishna, P., & Arun, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Public Health Research Institute Of India (IN)
Corresponding author
Madhivanan, Purnima
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09-05
OpenAlex
W4245614221
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
closed
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
self-collected vaginal swabs, HPV testing, high-risk HPV, cervical cancer screening, clinician-collected samples, test acceptability, diagnostic accuracy, rural women, mobile medical clinics, Mysore

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