Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador
Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13953 |
| _version_ | 1789408386145583104 |
|---|---|
| author | Vega Crespo, Bernardo Neira, Vivian Alejandra Ortíz S, José Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth López, Diana Gómez, Andrea Vicuña, María José Mejía, Jorge Benoy, Ina Parrón Carreño, Tesifón Verhoeven, Veronique |
| author_facet | Vega Crespo, Bernardo Neira, Vivian Alejandra Ortíz S, José Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth López, Diana Gómez, Andrea Vicuña, María José Mejía, Jorge Benoy, Ina Parrón Carreño, Tesifón Verhoeven, Veronique |
| author_sort | Vega Crespo, Bernardo |
| collection | DSpace |
| description | Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67–52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79–40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44–18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83–65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03–0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0–0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07–0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01–0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71–9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods. |
| format | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| id | oai:repositorio.ual.es:10835-13953 |
| institution | Universidad de Cuenca |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | MDPI |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oai:repositorio.ual.es:10835-139532023-04-12T19:16:58Z Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador Vega Crespo, Bernardo Neira, Vivian Alejandra Ortíz S, José Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth López, Diana Gómez, Andrea Vicuña, María José Mejía, Jorge Benoy, Ina Parrón Carreño, Tesifón Verhoeven, Veronique HPV self-sampling urine sampling vaginal sampling clinician sampling acceptability Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67–52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79–40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44–18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83–65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03–0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0–0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07–0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01–0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71–9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods. 2022-09-13T15:39:26Z 2022-09-13T15:39:26Z 2022-08-25 info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2227-9032 http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13953 10.3390/healthcare10091614 en https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/9/1614 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess MDPI |
| spellingShingle | HPV self-sampling urine sampling vaginal sampling clinician sampling acceptability Vega Crespo, Bernardo Neira, Vivian Alejandra Ortíz S, José Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth López, Diana Gómez, Andrea Vicuña, María José Mejía, Jorge Benoy, Ina Parrón Carreño, Tesifón Verhoeven, Veronique Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title | Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title_full | Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title_short | Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador |
| title_sort | evaluation of urine and vaginal self-sampling versus clinician-based sampling for cervical cancer screening: a field comparison of the acceptability of three sampling tests in a rural community of cuenca, ecuador |
| topic | HPV self-sampling urine sampling vaginal sampling clinician sampling acceptability |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13953 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vegacrespobernardo evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT neiravivianalejandra evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT ortizsjose evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT maldonadorengelruth evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT lopezdiana evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT gomezandrea evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT vicunamariajose evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT mejiajorge evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT benoyina evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT parroncarrenotesifon evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador AT verhoevenveronique evaluationofurineandvaginalselfsamplingversusclinicianbasedsamplingforcervicalcancerscreeningafieldcomparisonoftheacceptabilityofthreesamplingtestsinaruralcommunityofcuencaecuador |