Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits

Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening With Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022.

Interventions

Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group.

Results

The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.

Preferred Location for Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations among women's preferred locations for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in relation to their demographic, social, and health characteristics and their perceived benefits and concerns regarding this procedure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, descriptive survey.

SETTING

Online distribution between March 2022 and April 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

People who were assigned female sex at birth and were eligible for cervical cancer screening (N = 367: cis-gender women, n = 364; another gender identity, n = 3).

METHODS

We used quota sampling to obtain a racially and ethnically diverse sample. We conducted bivariate analyses to examine differences in participants' preferred locations for HPV self-sampling by sociodemographic and health characteristics. We used a multinomial logistic regression model to examine the associations between preferred HPV self-sampling location, characteristics of participants, and perceived benefits and concerns regarding this procedure.

RESULTS

In our sample, 43% (n = 158) of participants preferred HPV self-sampling at the office of a health care provider, 50% (n = 182) preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere (office or home), and 7% (n = 27) did not feel comfortable with HPV self-sampling anywhere. Participants 39 to 45 years of age were more likely to prefer HPV self-sampling anywhere (office or home) than participants 27 to 32 years of age, OR = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.21, 5.06]. Participants who preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere perceived greater benefit related to limited geographic access to a clinic compared to those who preferred office only, OR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.08, 3.07]. Participants who preferred HPV self-sampling anywhere had less concern related to performing the procedure accurately than those who preferred office only, OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.31, 0.62].

CONCLUSION

HPV self-sampling is an alternative strategy to increase cervical cancer screening. As providers consider implementation of HPV self-sampling, our findings suggest that office and home-based collection strategies should be considered to increase access to cervical cancer screening.

Mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to women under-screened for cervical cancer improved detection in cervical cancer screening in a general population study in Japan

BACKGROUND

One cause of the increase in cervical cancer rates in Japan is the long-term stagnation in the cervical cancer screening consultation rate. Therefore, improving the screening consultation rate is of urgent concern to reduce cervical cancer incidence. Self-collected human papilloma virus (HPV) tests have been successfully adopted in several countries, such as the Netherlands and Australia, as a measure of individuals who have not undergone cervical cancer screening in national programs. This study aimed to verify whether self-collected HPV tests presented an effective countermeasure for individuals who had not undergone the recommended cervical cancer screenings.

METHODS

This study was conducted from December 2020 to September 2022 in Muroran City, Japan. The primary evaluated endpoint was the percentage of citizens who underwent cervical cancer screening at a hospital with positive self-collected HPV test results. The secondary endpoint was the percentage of included participants who were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or higher among those who visited a hospital and underwent cervical cancer screening.

RESULTS

The included study participants were 7,653 individuals aged 20-50 years with no record of previous cervical cancer examination in the past 5 years. We mailed these participants information on self-administered HPV tests as an alternative screening procedure and sent the kit to 1,674 women who requested the test. Among them, 953 returned the kit. Among the 89 HPV-positive individuals (positive rate, 9.3%), 71 (79.8%) visited the designated hospital for an examination. A closer examination revealed that 13 women (18.3% of hospital visits) had a CIN finding of CIN2 or higher, among whom one each had cervical cancer and vulvar cancer, eight presented with CIN3, and three presented with CIN2; two cases of invasive gynecologic cancer were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the self-collected HPV tests showed a certain efficacy as a measure of individuals who had not undergone the recommended cervical cancer screening. We devised ways to have the unexamined patients undergo HPV testing and ensure that HPV-positive individuals visited the hospital. Despite a few limitations, our findings suggest the effectiveness of this public health intervention.

Leveraging COVID-era innovation for cervical cancer screening: Clinician awareness and attitudes toward self-sampling and rapid testing for HPV detection

Cervical cancer screening rates are declining in the US, with persistent disparities among vulnerable populations. Strategies to better reach under-screened communities are needed. The COVID pandemic sparked major shifts in healthcare delivery, including the accelerated development and adoption of rapid diagnostic testing, broadened access to remote care, and growing consumer demand for self-testing, which could be leveraged for cervical cancer. Rapid tests for the detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) have the potential to improve cervical cancer screening coverage, and if coupled with patient-collected cervicovaginal samples, create an opportunity for self-testing. The objectives of this study were: 1) to examine whether COVID influenced clinician perspectives of rapid testing as a screening modality; and 2) to assess clinician awareness, perceived benefits and limitations, and willingness to adopt point-of-care HPV testing, patient self-sampling, and rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. The methodology adopted consisted of an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) were conducted with clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in Indiana, ranked in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality and with marked disparities across socio-demographic groups. The main findings show that about half the clinicians reported that the COVID pandemic had influenced their views on rapid testing as a screening modality both positively (greater public acceptability of rapid testing and impact on patient care) and negatively (concerns regarding accuracy of rapid tests). The majority of clinicians (82%) were willing to adopt rapid HPV testing at the point-of-care, while only 48% were willing to adopt rapid HPV self-testing with self-collected samples. In-depth interviews revealed provider concerns around patients' ability to collect their own sample, report results correctly, and return to the clinic for follow-up and other preventive care. Addressing clinician concerns about self-sampling and rapid HPV testing, such as ensuring that rapid tests include sample adequacy controls, is necessary to mitigate barriers to adoption for cervical cancer screening.

Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials

Objectives

A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools.

Results

One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ (p = 1.177) in improving the CCS uptake. A higher relative uptake was shown for brushes (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5-1.7) and swabs (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.1) over clinician-collected samples. A high between-studies variability in characteristics of sampled women was shown. In all meta-analyses the level of heterogeneity was consistently high (I 2 > 95%). Publication bias was unlikely.

Conclusions

Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.

Cervical Cancer Prevention and High-Risk HPV Self-Sampling Awareness and Acceptability among Women Living with HIV: A Qualitative Investigation from the Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives

Routine cervical cancer screening is important for women living with HIV (WLH) due to the greater incidence and persistence of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) infection. HR-HPV self-sampling has been proposed to overcome barriers to in-office cervical cancer screening in underserved populations. However, little is known about baseline knowledge of HR-HPV and the acceptability of HR-HPV self-sampling among WLH. This paper describes WLH’s experiences and needs regarding cervical cancer screening, specifically HR-HPV self-sampling, and seeks to reconcile their experiences with the views of their providers. In total, 10 providers and 39 WLH participated in semi-structured interviews and group discussions, respectively. Knowledge of cervical cancer and HR-HPV was generally limited among WLH; when present, it was often due to personal experience of or proximity to someone affected by cervical cancer. Most WLH were not familiar with HR-HPV self-sampling but, despite some of the providers’ skepticism, expressed their willingness to participate in a mail-based HR-HPV self-sampling intervention and highlighted convenience, ease of use, and affordability as facilitators to the uptake of HR-HPV self-sampling. The experiences identified can be used to guide patient-centered communication aimed at improving cervical cancer knowledge and to inform interventions, such as HR-HPV self-sampling, designed to increase cervical cancer screening among under-screened WLH.

Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system

One in five U.S. women with health insurance are underscreened for cervical cancer. We sought to identify whether underscreening correlates differed among women with different levels of health care interaction. Among women age 30-64 years who were members of an integrated U.S. health system, we used 2014-2015 electronic health record data to identify underscreened cases (≥3.4 years since last Papanicolaou (Pap) test, n=3352) and screening-adherent controls (<3.4 years since last Pap test, n=45,359) and extracted data on potential underscreening correlates (demographics, health history, and healthcare utilization). We calculated the odds of underscreening in the total population and by subgroups defined by healthcare visits and online health portal usage in the prior 12 months. Underscreening was associated with older age (50-64 vs. 30-39; odds ratio (OR)=1.6; 95%CI=1.4-1.8), current tobacco use (vs. never use; OR=2.1; 95%CI=1.8-2.2), higher BMI (≥35 kg/m² vs <25 kg/m², OR=2.0; 95%CI=1.8-2.3), screening non-adherence for colorectal cancer (OR=5.1; 95%CI=4.6-5.7) and breast cancer (OR=8.1, 95%CI=7.2-9.0), and having no recent visit with their primary care provider (PCP) nor recent health portal use (vs. recent PCP visit and portal use; OR=8.4, 95%CI=7.6-9.4). Underscreening correlates were similar between the total study population and within all healthcare interaction groups. Interaction with the healthcare system is associated with lower odds of underscreening, but sociodemographic and health status correlates are similar regardless of primary care visits or online portal use. These data support the need for additional interventions to reach insured women who remain underscreened for cervical cancer.