ArticleReproductive health2018
Preference of specimen collection methods for human papillomavirus detection for cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of high-risk women in Mombasa, Kenya.
Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of educational intervention on the uptake of self-sampling for HPV test-based cervical cancer screening.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening among Women at Selected District Hospital, Rwanda.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2025Article
- Patient acceptability of CITOBOT for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-method study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus provider-sampling in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of accuracy, acceptability, cost, uptake, and equity.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Willingness to HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening and its predictors among women attending outpatient clinics in Meru District, Arusha Region, Northern Tanzania.African health sciences · 2022Article
- High-risk Human Papillomavirus Messenger RNA Testing in Wet and Dry Self-collected Specimens for High-grade Cervical Lesion Detection in Mombasa, Kenya.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Home-based HPV self-sampling assisted by a cloud-based electronic data system: Lessons learnt from a pilot community cervical cancer screening campaign in rural Ethiopia.Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- Correction to: Preference of specimen collection methods for human papillomavirus detection for cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of high-risk women in Mombasa, Kenya.Reproductive health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSelf-collection of genital specimens for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection may increase cervical cancer screening uptake. We hypothesized that women would prefer self-collection to clinician-collection of genital specimens. To test this hypothesis, and women's preference between two different self-collection approaches, a total of 199 women were enrolled in a cross-sectional study in Mombasa, Kenya. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants provided self-collected specimens using the Evalyn cytobrush (Rovers) stored in a dry tube and the Viba cytobrush (Rovers) stored in wet Aptima media (Hologic). A clinician also collected cervical specimens for hrHPV testing and for cytology, and performed visual inspection using acetic acid. A post-examination questionnaire assessed preferences for the different methods of specimen collection. To test the difference in proportions for each collection method, we performed an exact binomial probability test, under the null hypothesis that women would prefer each specimen-collection method equally.
resultsMost women preferred clinician-collection over self-collection (68% versus 32%, p < 0.01). For self-collection, dry-self collection with the Evalyn brush was preferred over the wet-selection with the Viba brush (53% versus 27%, p < 0.01). There was no association between preference for self-collection and preference for a particular self-collection cytobrush.
conclusionFurther research to understand and address obstacles to self-collection of genital specimens may be needed to improve the uptake of self-collection for cervical cancer screening, especially in settings with poor access to trained healthcare providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.