Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37633857›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024

HPV self-sampling among women in the United States: preferences for implementation.

Ashvita Garg, Annalynn M Galvin, Stacey B Griner, Zeev Rosberger, Ellen M Daley, Erika L Thompson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Ashvita GargDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA. garga@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4930-1712
Annalynn M GalvinDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Stacey B GrinerDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Zeev RosbergerDepartment of Oncology, Psychiatry and Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ellen M DaleyCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Erika L ThompsonDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWith the inclusion of primary HPV testing in 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce guidelines, at-home HPV self-sampling may provide a future option for cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations in the U.S. This study evaluated the association of implementation preferences with the willingness of at-home HPV self-sampling.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in 2018 among U.S. women ages 30-65 years, without a hysterectomy (n = 812). The outcome was willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling (yes/no). Primary predictor variables (i.e., information source, methods of payment, methods of sending or receiving self-sampling kits) measured self-sampling implementation preferences. Adjusted logistic regression identified associations with willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling.

resultsParticipants who preferred receiving information from healthcare providers (OR = 2.64; 95% CI 1.54,4.52) or from media or other sources (OR = 2.30; 95% CI 1.51,3.48) had higher HPV self-sampling willingness than participants who did not prefer those sources. Participants who did not want to pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.21; 95% CI 0.14,0.32) or did not know if they would pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.22,0.54) had lower odds of HPV self-sampling willingness compared to participants willing to pay. Participants who did not know which method they preferred for receiving a self-sampling kit (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07,0.31) or preferred delivering the sample to the lab themselves (OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.36,0.96) had lower odds for self-sampling willingness compared to participants who preferred the mail.

conclusionUnderstanding the preferences of women regarding the implementation of HPV self-sampling can improve uptake in cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPapillomaviridaeSelf CareSpecimen HandlingUnited StatesVaginal SmearsCervical cancerHPVImplementationSelf-samplingWomen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.