在有组织的宫颈癌筛查计划中进行 HPV 自我采样:2021 年爱沙尼亚随机试点研究。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Reeli Hallik, Kaire Innos, Jaak Jänes, Kai Jõers, Kaspar Ratnik, Piret Veerus
{"title":"在有组织的宫颈癌筛查计划中进行 HPV 自我采样:2021 年爱沙尼亚随机试点研究。","authors":"Reeli Hallik, Kaire Innos, Jaak Jänes, Kai Jõers, Kaspar Ratnik, Piret Veerus","doi":"10.1177/09691413241268819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical cancer incidence in Estonia ranks among the highest in Europe, but screening attendance has remained low. This randomized study aimed to evaluate the impact of opt-in and opt-out human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling options on participation in organized screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A random sample of 25,591 women were drawn from the cervical cancer screening target population who were due to receive a reminder in autumn 2021 and thereafter randomly allocated to two equally sized intervention arms (opt-out and opt-in) receiving a choice between HPV self-sampling or clinician sampling. In the opt-out arm, a self-sampler was sent to home address by regular mail; the opt-in arm received an e-mail containing a link to order a self-sampler online. The remaining 30,102 women in the control group received a standard reminder for conventional screening. Participation by intervention arm, age and region of residence was calculated; a questionnaire was used to assess self-sampling user experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference in participation was seen between opt-out (41.7%) (19.8% chose self-sampling and 21.9% clinician sampling), opt-in (34.1%) (7.9% self-sampling, 26.2% clinician sampling) and control group (29.0%, clinician sampling only). All age groups and regions in the intervention arms showed higher participation compared to the control group, but the size of the effect varied. Among self-sampling users, 99% agreed that the device was easy to use and only 3.5% preferred future testing at the clinic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Providing women with a choice between self-sampling and clinician sampling significantly increased participation in cervical cancer screening. Opt-in and opt-out options had a different effect across age groups, suggesting the need to adapt strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":" ","pages":"9691413241268819"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HPV self-sampling in organized cervical cancer screening program: A randomized pilot study in Estonia in 2021.\",\"authors\":\"Reeli Hallik, Kaire Innos, Jaak Jänes, Kai Jõers, Kaspar Ratnik, Piret Veerus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09691413241268819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical cancer incidence in Estonia ranks among the highest in Europe, but screening attendance has remained low. This randomized study aimed to evaluate the impact of opt-in and opt-out human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling options on participation in organized screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A random sample of 25,591 women were drawn from the cervical cancer screening target population who were due to receive a reminder in autumn 2021 and thereafter randomly allocated to two equally sized intervention arms (opt-out and opt-in) receiving a choice between HPV self-sampling or clinician sampling. In the opt-out arm, a self-sampler was sent to home address by regular mail; the opt-in arm received an e-mail containing a link to order a self-sampler online. The remaining 30,102 women in the control group received a standard reminder for conventional screening. Participation by intervention arm, age and region of residence was calculated; a questionnaire was used to assess self-sampling user experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference in participation was seen between opt-out (41.7%) (19.8% chose self-sampling and 21.9% clinician sampling), opt-in (34.1%) (7.9% self-sampling, 26.2% clinician sampling) and control group (29.0%, clinician sampling only). All age groups and regions in the intervention arms showed higher participation compared to the control group, but the size of the effect varied. Among self-sampling users, 99% agreed that the device was easy to use and only 3.5% preferred future testing at the clinic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Providing women with a choice between self-sampling and clinician sampling significantly increased participation in cervical cancer screening. Opt-in and opt-out options had a different effect across age groups, suggesting the need to adapt strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9691413241268819\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413241268819\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413241268819","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:爱沙尼亚的宫颈癌发病率在欧洲名列前茅,但参加筛查的人数一直很少。这项随机研究旨在评估选择接受和选择不接受人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)自我采样选项对参加有组织筛查的影响:从宫颈癌筛查目标人群中随机抽取了 25,591 名妇女,她们将在 2021 年秋季收到提醒,随后被随机分配到两个同等规模的干预组(选择退出组和选择加入组),在 HPV 自我采样或临床医生采样之间进行选择。在选择退出干预组中,自我采样器将通过普通邮件寄到家庭住址;而选择加入干预组则会收到一封电子邮件,其中包含在线订购自我采样器的链接。对照组的其余 30102 名妇女收到了常规筛查的标准提醒。按干预组、年龄和居住地区计算参与率;使用问卷评估自我采样用户体验:选择不参与组(41.7%)(19.8%选择自我采样,21.9%选择临床医生采样)、选择参与组(34.1%)(7.9%选择自我采样,26.2%选择临床医生采样)和对照组(29.0%,仅选择临床医生采样)的参与率存在明显差异。与对照组相比,所有年龄组和地区的干预组参与率都较高,但效果大小不一。在自我采样用户中,99%的人认为该设备易于使用,只有3.5%的人倾向于今后在诊所进行检测:结论:让妇女在自我采样和临床医生采样之间做出选择,能显著提高宫颈癌筛查的参与率。在不同年龄组中,选择接受和选择不接受的效果不同,这表明有必要调整策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
HPV self-sampling in organized cervical cancer screening program: A randomized pilot study in Estonia in 2021.

Background: Cervical cancer incidence in Estonia ranks among the highest in Europe, but screening attendance has remained low. This randomized study aimed to evaluate the impact of opt-in and opt-out human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling options on participation in organized screening.

Methods: A random sample of 25,591 women were drawn from the cervical cancer screening target population who were due to receive a reminder in autumn 2021 and thereafter randomly allocated to two equally sized intervention arms (opt-out and opt-in) receiving a choice between HPV self-sampling or clinician sampling. In the opt-out arm, a self-sampler was sent to home address by regular mail; the opt-in arm received an e-mail containing a link to order a self-sampler online. The remaining 30,102 women in the control group received a standard reminder for conventional screening. Participation by intervention arm, age and region of residence was calculated; a questionnaire was used to assess self-sampling user experience.

Results: A significant difference in participation was seen between opt-out (41.7%) (19.8% chose self-sampling and 21.9% clinician sampling), opt-in (34.1%) (7.9% self-sampling, 26.2% clinician sampling) and control group (29.0%, clinician sampling only). All age groups and regions in the intervention arms showed higher participation compared to the control group, but the size of the effect varied. Among self-sampling users, 99% agreed that the device was easy to use and only 3.5% preferred future testing at the clinic.

Conclusion: Providing women with a choice between self-sampling and clinician sampling significantly increased participation in cervical cancer screening. Opt-in and opt-out options had a different effect across age groups, suggesting the need to adapt strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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