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}
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).
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.