Acceptability of Self-Sampling HPV Testing Among Thai Women for Cervical Cancer Screening
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Acceptability of self-sampling HPV testing is confirmed worldwide. However, some cultural differences may affect this question. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of self- sampling HPV testing in Thai women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred women aged 30-65 years with an intact cervix were included in this study. The participants were asked to do the Pap test by physicians and then brush type self-sampling instruments were assigned for self-collection and finally completed a questionnaire for acceptability evaluation. The questionnaire contains 2 parts. Part one covered general information of the participants and part two is the acceptability questions. RESULTS: Mean age was 40.6 years. The incidence of high risk HPV detection in this study was 16%. The most common reason for doing Pap smear was for annual checkup. On the topic of ease of use, 85 % of the subjects agreed. Most of the participants (82%) reported that they felt less pain. However, reliability of the result was not satisfactory because 37% of the participants hesitated to rely on the results of the test. According to the price, if the price is less than 1,000 Baht (32.59 Baht = 1USD), 82% of the subjects would use it for their next screening. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptability of self-sampling device in this study is quite good but the reliability of the test was questioned by some of the participants. Moreover, the price of the test in Thailand may also influence the acceptability of the test.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 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 [35]
The Introduction and Discussion describe embarrassment and fear of pain from speculum examination as reasons Thai women avoid Pap screening. They do not address reluctance to have a male provider perform the examination; the paper also does not establish the claimed pattern across both Africa and Asia. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 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].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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
Oketch, S. Y., Kwena, Z., Choi, Y., Adewumi, K., Moghadassi, M., Bukusi, E. A., & Huchko, M. J. (2019) · BMC Women's Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-019-0778-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Creagh, N. S., Boyd, L. A. P., Bavor, C., Zammit, C., Saunders, T., Oommen, A. M., Rankin, N. M., Brotherton, J. M. L., & Nightingale, C. E. (2023) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go.22.00297 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oranratanaphan, S., Termrungruanglert, W., & Khemapech, N.
- Affiliations
- Chulalongkorn University (TH)
- Venue
- Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
- Published
- 2014-09-15
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 7437-7441
- ISSN
- 1513-7368 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130878267
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Greater South Information System
- 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
- cervical cancer screening, acceptability, Thai women, high-risk HPV prevalence, test reliability, screening costs
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Thailand, Vaginal Smears, Reproducibility of Results, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, 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
