Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32393243›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling in rural and remote aboriginal communities: evaluation of a nurse-led community engagement model.

Tegan Dutton, Jo Marjoram, Shellie Burgess, Laurinne Montgomery, Anne Vail, Nichole Callan, Sunil Jacob, David Hawkes, Marion Saville, Jannine Bailey

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tegan DuttonWestern Sydney University, School of Medicine, Bathurst Rural Clinical School, PO Box 9008, Bathurst, NSW, 2795, Australia. tegan.dutton@westernsydney.edu.au.
Jo MarjoramMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.
Shellie BurgessMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.
Laurinne MontgomeryMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.
Anne VailMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.
Nichole CallanMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.
Sunil JacobDubbo Medical and Allied Health Group, Dubbo, Australia.
David HawkesVictorian Cytology Service Pathology, Melbourne, Australia.
Marion SavilleVictorian Cytology Service Pathology, Melbourne, Australia.
Jannine BaileyWestern Sydney University, School of Medicine, Bathurst Rural Clinical School, PO Box 9008, Bathurst, NSW, 2795, Australia.
Victorian Clinical Genetics Services · AUWestern Sydney University · AUDubbo Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAboriginal women experience disproportionately higher rates of cervical cancer mortality yet are less likely to participate in screening for early detection. This study sought to determine whether a community-based HPV self-sampling service model can effectively recruit never-screened and under-screened Aboriginal women to participate in cervical cancer screening; assess the clinical outcomes; and explore the acceptability of the model from the perspective of the participants.

methodsAboriginal women aged 25-69 years of age were recruited from eight rural and remote communities in New South Wales, Australia to participate in HPV self-sampling via a community-based service model. Outcome measures were: number of women screened by HPV self-sampling, their prior cervical screening status (under-screened or never-screened), clinical outcomes and participation in follow-up pathways of care, and satisfaction with the service model.

resultsIn total, 215 women conducted a HPV self-sampling test and 200 evaluation surveys were completed. One-fifth of participants (n = 46) were never-screened and one-third (n = 69) were under-screened. Many were unsure of their screening status. Nine women were HPV 16/18 positive and eight had completed all follow up by the conclusion of the study. A further 30 women tested positive for a high risk type other than HPV 16/18 (HPV other), of which 14 had completed follow up at the conclusion of the study. Satisfaction with the HPV self-sampling kit, the process of self-sampling and the service model was high (> 92% satisfied on all items). Many women had difficulty understanding their official HPV results and placed high importance on the nurse explaining it to them.

conclusionsA community-based service model that respects Aboriginal Women's Business can effectively recruit under-screened and never-screened Aboriginal women to complete cervical cancer screening. Furthermore, this service model supports them to complete recommended follow-up care and engage with their local existing health services.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNew South WalesNurses, Community HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CarePapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPatient SatisfactionRural PopulationSelf CareAboriginal womenAboriginal Women’s businessCancerCervical screeningProgram evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32393243
PMCPMC7212679
OpenAlexW3027500003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.