Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31744374›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical screening2020

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

Colin Malone, Jasmin A Tiro, Diana Sm Buist, Tara Beatty, John Lin, Kilian Kimbel, Hongyuan Gao, Chris Thayer, Diana L Miglioretti, Rachel L Winer

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Colin MaloneDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Diana Sm BuistKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tara BeattyKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
John LinDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kilian KimbelKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hongyuan GaoKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chris ThayerKaiser Permanente Washington, Renton, WA, USA.
Diana L MigliorettiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rachel L WinerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8119-5107

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
Biobehavioral Cancer Prevention and Control Training ProgramR25CA092408 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PATRICK, DONALD LEE · 2001 to 2015
$7.1M
Randomized Trial of In-Home Cervical Cancer Screening in Underscreened WomenR01CA168598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WINER, RACHEL L. · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NCI NIH HHS R01 CA168598NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate experiences and reactions after receiving a mailed, unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kit and identify psychosocial correlates of using kits.

methodsSurvey participants were underscreened women aged 30-64 who were mailed human papillomavirus kits as part of a pragmatic trial at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a United States integrated health care system. Six months after the mailing, we invited kit returners and non-returners to complete a web survey that measured psychosocial factors (e.g. cervical cancer/human papillomavirus knowledge, attitudes toward screening), experiences, and reactions to kits. We compared responses between kit returners and non-returners.

resultsComparing 116 kit returners (272 invited) and 119 non-returners (1083 invited), we found no clinically significant differences in psychosocial factors. Overall, survey respondents showed knowledge gaps in human papillomavirus natural history (82% did not know human papillomavirus infection can clear on its own) and interpreting human papillomavirus test results (37% did not know a human papillomavirus-negative result indicates low cancer risk). Kit returners found kits convenient and easy to use (>90%). The most common reason for non-return was low confidence in ability to correctly use a kit, although many non-returners (49%) indicated that they would consider future use. Women reported low trust in human papillomavirus testing to identify women at high risk for cervical cancer (52% in returners, 42% in non-returners).

conclusionsScreening programs could improve uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling through outreach materials that emphasize the high efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening and educate patients about how to interpret results.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthSelf-TestingAdultAlphapapillomavirusEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPostal ServiceSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smearscervical cancer screeningearly detection of cancerembedded researchHuman papillomavirus DNA testspragmatic randomized trialsurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31744374
PMCPMC7237324

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.