Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34800474›Full record

Trial reportPreventive medicine2022

Does mailing unsolicited HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening impact uptake of other preventive health services in a United States integrated delivery system?

Hitomi Kariya, Diana S M Buist, Melissa L Anderson, John Lin, Hongyuan Gao, Linda K Ko, Rachel L Winer

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Preventive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hitomi KariyaDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Diana S M BuistDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Melissa L AndersonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
John LinDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hongyuan GaoKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Linda K KoDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rachel L WinerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: rlw@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · US

Funding

Randomized Trial of In-Home Cervical Cancer Screening in Underscreened WomenR01CA168598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WINER, RACHEL L. · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA168598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women overdue for cervical cancer screening often have other preventive care gaps. We examined whether mailing unsolicited human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to increase cervical cancer screening impacted receipt of other preventive services women were due for: mammography, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, influenza vaccination, depression screening, and diabetic HbA1c monitoring. From 2014 to 2016, 16,590 underscreened women were randomized to receive a mailed kit or usual care Pap reminders within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of preventive services receipt within 12-months between the intervention vs. control arms, and within the intervention arm (comparing those returning a kit vs. attending Pap vs. nothing), adjusting models for demographic variables. There were no significant between-arm differences in uptake of any of the preventive services: intervention vs. control: mammography OR = 1.01 (95% confidence interval:0.88-1.17), CRC screening OR = 0.98 (0.86-1.13), influenza vaccination OR = 0.99 (0.92-1.06), depression screening OR = 1.07 (0.99-1.16), HbA1c OR = 0.84 (0.62-1.13). Within the intervention arm, preventive services uptake was higher in women who completed cervical cancer screening vs. did not, with stronger effects for women who attended Pap: Pap vs. nothing: mammography OR = 11.81 (8.11-17.19), CRC screening OR = 7.31 (5.57-9.58), influenza vaccination OR = 2.06 (1.82-2.32), depression screening OR = 1.79 (1.57-2.05), HbA1c OR = 3.35 (1.49-7.52); kit vs. nothing: mammography OR = 2.26 (1.56-3.26), CRC screening OR = 5.05 (3.57-7.14), influenza vaccination OR = 1.67 (1.41-1.98), depression screening OR = 1.09 (0.89-1.33), HbA1c OR = 1.23 (0.57-2.65). Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to underscreened women did not negatively impact uptake of other preventive services. However, overall preventive service uptake was the highest among women who attended in-clinic cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaePreventive Health ServicesUnited StatesVaginal SmearsCancer screeningCervical cancerHuman papillomavirusPreventive health servicesSelf-testing

Identifiers

PMID34800474
PMCPMC8724401
OpenAlexW3214524988

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.