{"title":"人乳头瘤病毒自我抽样在美国全国妇女样本中的可接受性","authors":"Erin Bishop, Mira L Katz, Paul L Reiter","doi":"10.1089/biores.2018.0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling continues to emerge as a potential cervical cancer screening strategy in the United States, it is necessary to examine women's acceptability of this screening approach. Furthermore, since several HPV self-sampling devices exist, it is important to determine if women's preferences differ by device type. We conducted an online survey in Fall 2017 with a national sample of women (<i>n</i> = 605) ages 21-65 years (the recommended age range for cervical cancer screening). Multivariable linear regression identified correlates of women's willingness to use an HPV self-sample at home. We used repeated measures analysis of variance to determine if preferences differed across four self-sampling devices: Evalyn<sup>®</sup> Brush (Device A), HerSwab<sup>®</sup> (Device B), Catch-All<sup>®</sup> Swab (Device C), and Qvintip<sup>®</sup> (Device D). Most women were willing to use an HPV self-sample at home (mean = 4.03 [possible range: 1-5], standard deviation = 1.09, 72.7% indicated \"probably willing\" or \"definitely willing\"). The most common concerns about self-sampling were related to test accuracy (53.1%) and obtaining the sample incorrectly (51.1%). Women were more willing to use an HPV self-sample at home if they reported greater perceived severity of cervical cancer (<i>β</i> = 0.16), reported an annual income less than $50,000 (<i>β</i> = 0.13), or were a former smoker (<i>β</i> = 0.11). Women were more willing to use Device A (mean = 3.72, 67.6% indicated \"agree\" or \"strongly agree\"), Device C (mean = 3.86, 73.9% indicated \"agree\" or \"strongly agree\"), and Device D (mean = 3.81, 72.1% indicated \"agree\" or \"strongly agree\") than Device B (mean = 3.36, 49.4% indicated \"agree\" or \"strongly agree\"; all <i>p</i> < 0.05). Acceptability of HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening strategy is generally high among women. Future efforts should consider the potential impact that device type may have on women's use of an HPV self-sample at home.</p>","PeriodicalId":9100,"journal":{"name":"BioResearch Open Access","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/biores.2018.0040","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among a National Sample of Women in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Erin Bishop, Mira L Katz, Paul L Reiter\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/biores.2018.0040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling continues to emerge as a potential cervical cancer screening strategy in the United States, it is necessary to examine women's acceptability of this screening approach. Furthermore, since several HPV self-sampling devices exist, it is important to determine if women's preferences differ by device type. We conducted an online survey in Fall 2017 with a national sample of women (<i>n</i> = 605) ages 21-65 years (the recommended age range for cervical cancer screening). Multivariable linear regression identified correlates of women's willingness to use an HPV self-sample at home. We used repeated measures analysis of variance to determine if preferences differed across four self-sampling devices: Evalyn<sup>®</sup> Brush (Device A), HerSwab<sup>®</sup> (Device B), Catch-All<sup>®</sup> Swab (Device C), and Qvintip<sup>®</sup> (Device D). Most women were willing to use an HPV self-sample at home (mean = 4.03 [possible range: 1-5], standard deviation = 1.09, 72.7% indicated \\\"probably willing\\\" or \\\"definitely willing\\\"). The most common concerns about self-sampling were related to test accuracy (53.1%) and obtaining the sample incorrectly (51.1%). Women were more willing to use an HPV self-sample at home if they reported greater perceived severity of cervical cancer (<i>β</i> = 0.16), reported an annual income less than $50,000 (<i>β</i> = 0.13), or were a former smoker (<i>β</i> = 0.11). Women were more willing to use Device A (mean = 3.72, 67.6% indicated \\\"agree\\\" or \\\"strongly agree\\\"), Device C (mean = 3.86, 73.9% indicated \\\"agree\\\" or \\\"strongly agree\\\"), and Device D (mean = 3.81, 72.1% indicated \\\"agree\\\" or \\\"strongly agree\\\") than Device B (mean = 3.36, 49.4% indicated \\\"agree\\\" or \\\"strongly agree\\\"; all <i>p</i> < 0.05). Acceptability of HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening strategy is generally high among women. Future efforts should consider the potential impact that device type may have on women's use of an HPV self-sample at home.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioResearch Open Access\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/biores.2018.0040\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioResearch Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/biores.2018.0040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioResearch Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/biores.2018.0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Among a National Sample of Women in the United States.
As human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling continues to emerge as a potential cervical cancer screening strategy in the United States, it is necessary to examine women's acceptability of this screening approach. Furthermore, since several HPV self-sampling devices exist, it is important to determine if women's preferences differ by device type. We conducted an online survey in Fall 2017 with a national sample of women (n = 605) ages 21-65 years (the recommended age range for cervical cancer screening). Multivariable linear regression identified correlates of women's willingness to use an HPV self-sample at home. We used repeated measures analysis of variance to determine if preferences differed across four self-sampling devices: Evalyn® Brush (Device A), HerSwab® (Device B), Catch-All® Swab (Device C), and Qvintip® (Device D). Most women were willing to use an HPV self-sample at home (mean = 4.03 [possible range: 1-5], standard deviation = 1.09, 72.7% indicated "probably willing" or "definitely willing"). The most common concerns about self-sampling were related to test accuracy (53.1%) and obtaining the sample incorrectly (51.1%). Women were more willing to use an HPV self-sample at home if they reported greater perceived severity of cervical cancer (β = 0.16), reported an annual income less than $50,000 (β = 0.13), or were a former smoker (β = 0.11). Women were more willing to use Device A (mean = 3.72, 67.6% indicated "agree" or "strongly agree"), Device C (mean = 3.86, 73.9% indicated "agree" or "strongly agree"), and Device D (mean = 3.81, 72.1% indicated "agree" or "strongly agree") than Device B (mean = 3.36, 49.4% indicated "agree" or "strongly agree"; all p < 0.05). Acceptability of HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening strategy is generally high among women. Future efforts should consider the potential impact that device type may have on women's use of an HPV self-sample at home.
BioResearch Open AccessBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍:
BioResearch Open Access is a high-quality open access journal providing peer-reviewed research on a broad range of scientific topics, including molecular and cellular biology, tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, stem cells, gene therapy, systems biology, genetics, virology, and neuroscience. The Journal publishes basic science and translational research in the form of original research articles, comprehensive review articles, mini-reviews, rapid communications, brief reports, technology reports, hypothesis articles, perspectives, and letters to the editor.