The acceptability of a self-lavaging device compared to pelvic examination for cervical cancer screening among low-income women

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1275-1281

  Jones, Heidi E ^a,b   Brudney, Karen ^a   Sawo, Dorothy J ^a   Lantigua, Rafael ^a   Westhoff, Carolyn L ^a  

^a Department of Medicine   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DEVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PELVIC EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SELF EVALUATION; SELF LAVAGING DEVICE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; VAGINAL LAVAGE; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCOME; MIDDLE AGED; NEW YORK CITY; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CARE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SPECIMEN HANDLING; VAGINAL DOUCHING; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84870800025     PISSN: 15409996     EISSN: 1931843X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3512     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthy people 2020 objectives, 2011. Available at healthypeople .gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/ default.aspx Accessed July 19, 2011.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010 progress review, 2006. Available at www.healthy people.gov/data/2010prog/ focus03/2006Focus3.pdf Accessed May 3, 2010.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2010.
4. Pizarro J, Schneider TR, Salovey P. A source of error in selfreports of Pap test utilization. J Community Health 2002; 27:351-356.
5. Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA. Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:748-757.
6. Brink AA, Meijer CJ, Wiegerinck MA, et al. High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2518- 2523.
7. Jones HE, Wiegerinck MA, Nieboer TE, Mol BW, Westhoff CL. Women in The Netherlands prefer self-sampling with a novel lavaging device to clinician collection of specimens for cervical cancer screening. Sex Transm Dis 2008;35: 916-917.
8. Igidbashian S, Boveri S, Spolti N, Radice D, Sandri MT, Sideri M. Self-collected human papillomavirus testing acceptability: Comparison of two self-sampling modalities. J Womens Health 2011;20:397-402.
9. Anhang R, Nelson JA, Telerant R, Chiasson MA, Wright TC Jr. Acceptability of self-collection of specimens for HPV DNA testing in an urban population. J Womens Health 2005;14:721-728.
10. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, et al. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: Attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:675-683.
11. Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, et al. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: An effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1505-1510.
12. Gok M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: Cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c1040.
13. Virtanen A, Anttila A, Luostarinen T, Nieminen P. Selfsampling versus reminder letter: Effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage in Finland. Int J Cancer 2011;128:2681-2687.
14. Castle PE, Rausa A, Walls T, et al. Comparative community outreach to increase cervical cancer screening in the Mississippi Delta. Prev Med 2011;52:452-455.
15. Matin M, LeBaron S. Attitudes toward cervical cancer screening among Muslim women: A pilot study. Women Health 2004;39:63-77.
16. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Ashdown-Barr L, Waller J. Exploring the acceptability of two self-sampling devices for human papillomavirus testing in the cervical screening context: A qualitative study of Muslim women in London. J Med Screen 2009;16:193-198.
17. Giorgi Rossi P, Marsili LM, Camilloni L, et al. The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation in cervical cancer screening in Italy: A randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600). Br J Cancer 2011;104:248-254.
18. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: A meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:207-212.
19. Petignat P, Faltin D, Bruchim I, Tramer M, Franco E, Coutle'e F. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:530-535.