Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31489627›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2019

HPV self-sampling acceptability and preferences among women living with HIV in Botswana.

Racquel E Kohler, Tamara Elliott, Barati Monare, Neo Moshashane, Kehumile Ramontshonyana, Pritha Chatterjee, Doreen Ramogola-Masire, Chelsea Morroni

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Racquel E KohlerSocial and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Tamara ElliottBotswana UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Barati MonareBotswana UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Neo MoshashaneBotswana UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Kehumile RamontshonyanaBotswana UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Pritha ChatterjeeSocial and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Doreen Ramogola-MasireBotswana UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Chelsea MorroniBotswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership · BWHarvard University · USUniversity of Botswana · BW

Funding

Harvard Education Program in Cancer Prevention Control (R25T)R25CA057711 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI DAVISON, KIRSTEN · 1992 to 2018
$8.5M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057711NIH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the acceptability and preferences of HPV screening with self-sampling and mobile phone results delivery among women living with HIV (WLWH) in Botswana, as an alternative to traditional speculum screening.

methodsWLWH aged 25 years or older attending an infectious disease clinic in Gaborone were enrolled in a cross-sectional study between March and April 2017. Women self-sampled with a flocked swab, had a speculum exam, and completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire about screening acceptability, experiences, and preferences.

resultsOf the 104 WLWH recruited, 98 (94%) had a history of traditional screening. Over 90% agreed self-sampling was easy and comfortable. Ninety-five percent were willing to self-sample again; however, only 19% preferred self-sampling over speculum exam for future screening. Preferences differed by education and residence with self-sampling being considered more convenient, easier, less embarrassing, and less painful. Speculum exams were preferred because of trust in providers' skills and women's low self-efficacy to sample correctly. Almost half (47%) preferred to receive results via mobile phone call. Knowledge of cervical cancer did not affect preferences.

conclusionHPV self-sampling is acceptable among WLWH in Botswana; however, preferences vary. Although self-sampling is an important alternative to traditional speculum screening, education and support will be critical to address women's low self-efficacy to self-sample correctly.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesBotswanaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsSelf CareSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcceptabilityCervical cancer preventionHIVHPV testingPatient preferencesSelf-samplingsub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID31489627
PMCPMC6944206
OpenAlexW2972250416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.