Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens as a primary screen for cervical cancer
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the acceptability of self-collected vs clinician-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) tests. Utilising a cross-sectional approach, 250 non-pregnant, 25-60-year-old women from Leon, Nicaragua self-collected vaginal swabs and brushes for HPV and received a pelvic examination for liquid-based cytology and reflex HPV. Subjects underwent colposcopy, with biopsy if indicated, and completed questionnaires comparing their perceptions of HPV testing methods. Acceptability indices were significantly higher for self-collected brushes (M = 18.40, SD = 2.73) and swabs (M = 18.48, SD = 2.41) than clinician-collection (M = 17.56, SD = 2.92), p < 0.001. Multiple regression analyses revealed that age, education, and reproductive history were not significant predictors of acceptability. A total of 81.1% of subjects reported they would self-collect in the future. Self-collected HPV tests are highly acceptable in terms of pain, comfort, privacy and embarrassment, and are thus a viable method of screening in low-resource areas.
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?
Several studies comparing HPV screening results from self-collected and clinician-collected specimens in low- and middle-income countries have all demonstrated high levels of agreement.
“There have been several studies comparing HPV screening results from self-collected and clinician-collected specimens in low- and middle-income countries with all demonstrating high levels of agreement (Bhatla et al., 2009; Quincy et al., 2012; Verma and Khanna, 2013; Nilyanimit et al., 2014; Rosenbaum et al., 2014; Adamson et al., 2015; Ma’som et al., 2016).”
From Acceptability and Concordance of Self- Versus Clinician- Sampling for HPV Testing among Rural South Indian Women (2021) · cites this paper as Quincy et al., 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Madhivanan, P., Nishimura, H., Ravi, K., Pope, B., Coudray, M., Arun, A., Krupp, K., Jayakrishna, P., & Srinivas, V. (2021) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.31557/apjcp.2021.22.3.971 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“…and clinician-collected specimens in low- and middle-income countries with all demonstrating high levels of agreement (Bhatla et al., 2009; Quincy et al., 2012; Verma and Khanna, 2013; Nilyanimit et al., 2014; Rosenbaum et al., 2014; Adamson et al., 2015; Ma’som et Asian Pacific Journal…”
Background
- Authors
- Quincy, B. L., Turbow, D. J., & Dabinett, L. N.
- Affiliations
- Elon University (US)
- Trident University International (US)
- Corresponding author
- Quincy, B. L.
- ORCID
- Quincy, B. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-12-20
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-91
- ISSN
- 0144-3615 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-6893
- OpenAlex
- W2004708449
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (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 testing, self-collected samples, cervical cancer screening, acceptability, clinician-collected samples, vaginal swabs, liquid-based cytology, colposcopy, resource-limited settings, women's perceptions
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, Papillomavirus Infections
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
