Follow-Up After Receiving Abnormal Results From Self-Sampled Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Underserved Patients

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-27 DOI:10.1002/cam4.71283
Jennifer L. Moss, Veronica E. Bernacchi, Juliette Entenman, Heather Costigan, Heather L. Stuckey, Mack T. Ruffin
{"title":"Follow-Up After Receiving Abnormal Results From Self-Sampled Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Underserved Patients","authors":"Jennifer L. Moss,&nbsp;Veronica E. Bernacchi,&nbsp;Juliette Entenman,&nbsp;Heather Costigan,&nbsp;Heather L. Stuckey,&nbsp;Mack T. Ruffin","doi":"10.1002/cam4.71283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Increasing cancer screening through at-home self-sampling test modalities is a public health priority. Patients with abnormal screening results should receive diagnostic follow-up care; optimizing this process is a challenge. We conducted a mixed methods study to examine the cancer screening process among underserved patients who received abnormal results on a self-sampled cancer screening test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Participants were drawn from a parent study examining the impact of self-sampled colorectal and cervical cancer screening tests among patients at federally qualified health centers in Pennsylvania. Those who had received abnormal results on their screening were completed a survey and semi-structured interview about their experience (<i>n</i> = 5). We conducted mixed methods analysis to examine participants' (1) understanding and follow-up care for abnormal results and (2) satisfaction with the self-sampling cancer screening process.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Quantitatively, participants indicated very high satisfaction with each self-sampled cancer screening, and 60% preferred a self-sampled test for their next cancer screening. Qualitatively, participants differed in the extent to which they seemed to understand their screening results, but they were generally satisfied with the self-sampling process. In mixed methods analysis, participants' baseline knowledge about cancer screening supported better understanding of abnormal screening results, and participants' preference for their next cancer screening was related to their experiences with self-sampling.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Among this sample of patients who received abnormal results on their self-sampled colorectal or cervical cancer screening test, knowledge and understanding were not prerequisites for accessing follow-up care. Satisfaction with the self-sampling screening process was very high. These findings provide additional support for public health priorities to expand access to self-sampling cancer screening tests.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.71283","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.71283","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Increasing cancer screening through at-home self-sampling test modalities is a public health priority. Patients with abnormal screening results should receive diagnostic follow-up care; optimizing this process is a challenge. We conducted a mixed methods study to examine the cancer screening process among underserved patients who received abnormal results on a self-sampled cancer screening test.

Methods

Participants were drawn from a parent study examining the impact of self-sampled colorectal and cervical cancer screening tests among patients at federally qualified health centers in Pennsylvania. Those who had received abnormal results on their screening were completed a survey and semi-structured interview about their experience (n = 5). We conducted mixed methods analysis to examine participants' (1) understanding and follow-up care for abnormal results and (2) satisfaction with the self-sampling cancer screening process.

Results

Quantitatively, participants indicated very high satisfaction with each self-sampled cancer screening, and 60% preferred a self-sampled test for their next cancer screening. Qualitatively, participants differed in the extent to which they seemed to understand their screening results, but they were generally satisfied with the self-sampling process. In mixed methods analysis, participants' baseline knowledge about cancer screening supported better understanding of abnormal screening results, and participants' preference for their next cancer screening was related to their experiences with self-sampling.

Conclusions

Among this sample of patients who received abnormal results on their self-sampled colorectal or cervical cancer screening test, knowledge and understanding were not prerequisites for accessing follow-up care. Satisfaction with the self-sampling screening process was very high. These findings provide additional support for public health priorities to expand access to self-sampling cancer screening tests.

Abstract Image

在服务不足的患者中接受自我抽样结直肠癌和宫颈癌筛查试验异常结果后的随访
通过家庭自我抽样测试方式增加癌症筛查是公共卫生的优先事项。筛查结果异常的患者应接受诊断性随访护理;优化这个过程是一个挑战。我们进行了一项混合方法研究,以检查在自我抽样癌症筛查测试中获得异常结果的服务不足的患者的癌症筛查过程。方法参与者来自一项父母研究,该研究在宾夕法尼亚州联邦合格的健康中心对患者进行自我抽样的结直肠癌和宫颈癌筛查试验的影响。对筛查结果异常的患者进行问卷调查和半结构化访谈(n = 5)。我们采用混合方法分析来检验参与者(1)对异常结果的理解和后续护理,以及(2)对自抽样癌症筛查过程的满意度。结果在数量上,参与者对每次自我抽样的癌症筛查表示非常高的满意度,60%的人更喜欢在下一次癌症筛查中进行自我抽样测试。从质量上讲,参与者对筛选结果的理解程度不同,但他们总体上对自我抽样过程感到满意。在混合方法分析中,参与者对癌症筛查的基线知识支持更好地理解异常筛查结果,参与者对下一次癌症筛查的偏好与他们的自我抽样经验有关。结论在自检结直肠癌或宫颈癌筛查结果异常的患者中,知识和理解不是获得随访护理的先决条件。对自抽样筛选过程的满意度非常高。这些发现为公共卫生优先事项提供了额外支持,以扩大自我抽样癌症筛查测试的可及性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Medicine
Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
907
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信