逾期子宫颈普查人士自我抽样提供方式对参与普查的影响:一项随机对照试验。

IF 10 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-07-28 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357
Anita W W Lim, Rebecca Landy, Jane Rigney, Bernard North, Peter D Sasieni
{"title":"逾期子宫颈普查人士自我抽样提供方式对参与普查的影响:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Anita W W Lim, Rebecca Landy, Jane Rigney, Bernard North, Peter D Sasieni","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"86 ","pages":"103357"},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12399199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Anita W W Lim, Rebecca Landy, Jane Rigney, Bernard North, Peter D Sasieni\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"volume\":\"86 \",\"pages\":\"103357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12399199/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103357","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:向非参与者提供自我抽样增加子宫颈筛查的吸收,但提供试剂盒的最佳方法尚不清楚。方法:采用自抽样随机对照试验。将13名全科医生随机(1:1)分组到逾期宫颈筛查≥6个月的妇女中,以便如果她们因任何原因去看全科医生(N = 6080名妇女),或者没有机会提供(N = 6577名妇女),可以向她们提供自采样试剂盒。此外,从未筛查过的妇女和逾期筛查15或27个月的妇女被单独随机分配(2:1:1)到常规护理(没有系统的建议),一封邀请她们订购工具包的信(信),或发送一个自采样工具包(工具包)。这项研究从2019年4月持续到2020年3月。主要结果是返回自采样试剂盒,次要结果是任何宫颈筛查。国际标准随机对照试验号(ISRCTN)为23940319。研究结果:在机会性报价实践中,342人(5.6%)返回了自己的样本,而在没有随机分配到机会性报价的实践中,这一比例为1.9%(123/6577)(调整后的风险差异为4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%))。一半(234/449)提供自我抽样的女性机会主义地返回了样本。在6400名女性中,分别随机分为无系统报价、信件和试剂盒组,分别有1.7%(54/3197)、4.8%(76/1587;与无系统报价的差异为3.1% (95% CI: 2.0-4.2%)和12.3%(198/1616;与无系统报价的差异为10.5%,95% CI: 8.9% -12.2%)返回自我样本(主要结果)。这些观察到的差异在次要结果,任何子宫颈筛查中都保持不变。无不良反应报告。解释:面对面的提议是最有效的,但只有一小部分非与会者收到了这样的提议。没有工具包的邮寄邀请效果较差。次要结果表明,那些通过自我抽样筛选的人将不会被筛选,并有助于增加筛选覆盖率。资助:癌症研究UKC8162/A16892至PS(消耗品),C8162/A29083至PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356至PS (BN);美国国立卫生研究院临床研究网络(NIHR CRN)中央投资组合管理系统(CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL);美国国家癌症研究所(RL)癌症流行病学和遗传学分部的校内研究项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.

Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.

Background: Offering self-sampling to non-attenders increases cervical screening uptake, but the optimal approach for offering kits remains unclear.

Methods: Randomised controlled trial offering self-sampling. 13 GP (general practitioner) practices were randomised (1:1) to flagging women ≥6-months overdue cervical screening so that they could be offered a self-sampling kit if they attended their GP for any reason (N = 6080 women), or no opportunistic offer (N = 6577 women). Additionally, never screened women and those overdue screening by 15- or 27-months were individually randomised (2:1:1) to usual care (no systematic offer), a letter inviting them to order a kit (letter), or being sent a self-sampling kit (kit). The study ran from April 2019 to March 2020. The primary outcome was returning a self-sampling kit, and the secondary outcome was any cervical screening. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) is 23940319.

Findings: In opportunistic offer practices, 342 (5.6%) returned a self-sample compared with 1.9% (123/6577) in practices not randomised to opportunistic offering (adjusted risk difference 4.4% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.0%)). Half (234/449) of women offered self-sampling opportunistically returned a sample. Among 6400 women individually randomised to no systematic offer vs letter vs kit, 1.7% (54/3197), 4.8% (76/1587; difference relative to no systematic offer 3.1% 95% CI: 2.0-4.2%) and 12.3% (198/1616; difference relative to no systematic offer 10.5%, 95% CI: 8.9-12.2%), returned a self-sample (the primary outcome), respectively. These observed differences were maintained in the secondary outcome, any cervical screening. No adverse effects were reported.

Interpretation: In-person offers were most effective, but only a small proportion of non-attenders received such an offer. Postal invitations without a kit were less effective. The secondary outcome suggests those screened by self-sampling would not have been screened otherwise and contribute to increased screening coverage.

Funding: Cancer Research UKC8162/A16892 to PS (consumables), C8162/A29083 to PS (JR, AL), C8162/A25356 to PS (BN); National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID: 36156 (AL); Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (RL).

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
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
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