Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-07 DOI:10.1177/09691413221092246
Hannah Drysdale, Laura Av Marlow, Anita Lim, Peter Sasieni, Jo Waller
{"title":"Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England.","authors":"Hannah Drysdale, Laura Av Marlow, Anita Lim, Peter Sasieni, Jo Waller","doi":"10.1177/09691413221092246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening.</p><p><strong>Setting and methods: </strong>An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"29 1","pages":"194-202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9381689/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221092246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening.

Setting and methods: An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed.

Results: Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups.

Conclusions: If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.

邀请时提供的子宫颈筛查的自我抽样:英格兰偏好的横断面研究
目的:本研究评估了人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)自我抽样的偏好,如果在邀请进行子宫颈筛查时提供临床基础筛查的替代方案。背景和方法对居住在英格兰的符合筛查条件的妇女(n = 3672)进行在线问卷调查。Logistic回归探讨了人口统计学特征与筛查偏好之间的关系,并按以前的筛查出席率分层。对偏好的原因也进行了评估。结果半数(51.4%)的参与者倾向于自我抽样,36.5%的人倾向于临床医生筛查,10.5%的人不确定,<2%的人倾向于不筛查。与定期参与者相比,更多的不定期参与者和从未参加的参与者选择自我抽样(分别为71.1%和70.1%)。在定期参加的人群中,职业级别最高的女性、年龄较大的女性、女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋女性以及有验血经历的女性更倾向于自我抽样。在不定期参加的一组中,年龄较大的妇女和有血液自检经验的妇女更有可能选择自我抽样。在“从不参加”中,自我抽样在少数民族群体中不太受欢迎。结论:如果可以选择筛查,大约一半的英国女性可能会选择自我抽样,但仍有相当大比例的女性会选择临床筛查。如果许多常规参与者转向自我抽样,筛查提供者将需要管理自我抽样的高使用率。
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
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信