Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36853311›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023

Acceptability and Preference for Human Papilloma Virus Self-Sampling among Thai Women Attending National Cancer Institute.

Pattama Ploysawang, Supakorn Pitakkarnkul, Warangkana Kolaka, Panwad Ratanasrithong, Uraiwan Khomphaiboonkij, Chonticha Tipmed, Kanda Seeda, Parinda Pangmuang, Suleeporn Sangrajrang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pattama PloysawangDivision of Policy Development and Strategic Plan, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Supakorn PitakkarnkulDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Warangkana KolakaDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panwad RatanasrithongDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Uraiwan KhomphaiboonkijDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chonticha TipmedDivision of Policy Development and Strategic Plan, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kanda SeedaDivision of Policy Development and Strategic Plan, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Parinda PangmuangDivision of Policy Development and Strategic Plan, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suleeporn SangrajrangDivision of Policy Development and Strategic Plan, National Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ministry of Public Health · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer screening is an important public health strategy to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling is the alternative method that can potentially increase participation in cervical cancer screening. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of HPV self-sampling as a primary cervical cancer screening among Thai women.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at National Cancer Institute, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Eligible women were invited to collect their own samples with a vaginal cotton swab for cervical screening. The data on demographics, acceptability, and preference for HPV self-sampling were collected via a self-administered questionnaire. A Likert scale was used to assess the response of self-sampling acceptability. The multivariable logistic regression determined factors that influence preference for HPV self-sampling.

resultsA total of 265 participants were recruited. Over 70% agreed that self-sampling was easy, less embarrassing, and not painful. They also felt confident in their ability to self-sample correctly and would recommend this method to a friend or relative. For their next screening round, 66.4% preferred self-sampling whereas 33.6% preferred clinician-collected samples as routine screening. The factors that influence preference for self-sampling were age, marital status, feeling less embarrassed, and confidence in performing the tests.

conclusionsMost of the study participants accepted HPV self-sampling. This suggests that the self-sampling method will be an additional option to increase cervical cancer screening coverage which leads to improving the effectiveness of the national program.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPatient PreferenceSelf-TestingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansSoutheast Asian PeopleThailandAcceptabilitycervical cancer screeningHPV Self-SamplingNational Cancer InstituteThailand

Identifiers

PMID36853311
PMCPMC10162607
OpenAlexW4322617313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.