ArticleWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2025
Improving Communication and Management Following a Positive Home HPV Self-Sampling Result: Comparing Intervention Strategies Between the HOME and STEP Trials.
Article in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits improve cervical cancer screening adherence. The HOME trial found information needs and anxiety among HPV-positive patients. We designed a STEP trial to test optimized intervention strategies with bolstered educational materials and a centralized nurse communicating positive results. Here, we evaluate the effect of the strategies by comparing interviews of HOME and STEP participants receiving HPV-positive results. Materials and Methods: STEP participants were interviewed during December 2021-March 2022, and asked about their kit reaction and nurse communication, and surveyed on attitudes toward the kit. Transcripts were analyzed in two phases: (1) Coders used iterative content analysis to organize codes into node reports and identify themes and (2) coders compared node reports between the HOME and STEP trials. Results: Sociodemographic of 46 HOME and 28 STEP participants were similar (White, older, had prior Pap). Participants from both trials appreciated the kit's convenience, although some questioned its accuracy compared to clinician-performed screening. While many STEP participants were surprised by the positive result, most felt reassured by the nurse and understood the recommended follow-up. STEP participants expressed fewer negative emotions. More STEP than HOME participants believed the HPV result was correct (86% vs. 59%) and trusted it (90% vs. 65%). Willingness to recommend the HPV kit to a friend and use it in the future was high in both the trials. Discussion: Qualitative comparison of HOME and STEP participants' reactions suggests STEP patients received the information needed to understand HPV-positive results and complete follow-up. Findings support a centralized nurse communicating results and building trust in this new screening technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.