ArticleBMC women's health2026
Is there a difference in sample adequacy when vaginal HPV DNA samples are self-collected at home, a health post, or a primary care health center in rural Ethiopia? Implications for community cervical cancer screening.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-collection of HPV DNA samples is recommended as a cervical cancer screening method in areas with high barriers to clinical examination, such as Ethiopia. Self-collected sample adequacy in clinical settings is high compared to clinician collection, but less is known about self-collected sample adequacy in community settings. We evaluated sample adequacy differences when samples were taken at women’s homes, a local health post, or a primary care health center in rural Ethiopia.
methodsWomen either self-collected vaginal samples for HPV DNA at home (Arm 1, n = 100), at a health post (Arm 2, n = 100), or at a health center (Arm 3, n = 200). Women received identical sample collection kits and illustrated instruction pamphlets; all samples were treated the same way once collected. HPV DNA testing was performed using Ampfire Multiplex High-Risk HPV (Atila, Mountain View, California).
resultsThirty-two (8%) of the 399 samples were inadequate (negative β-globin gene). Sample inadequacy frequency was highest in Arm 1-Home (15%) compared to Arm 2-Health Post (7%) and Arm 3-Health Center (5%) (p < 0.05)). Arm 1 had significantly higher odds of inadequacy than Arm 3 (aOR: 2.8, 95% CI 1.2–6.8, p = 0.02) when adjusted for age, education, and marital status. There was no difference in adequacy between Arms 2 and 3. HPV prevalence was lowest in Arm 1 (6%) and significantly higher in Arms 2 and 3 (20.4% and 15.9%, respectively, p = 0.02). More women in Arm 2 reported positive views of self-sampling, and fewer reported embarrassment when using the self-test compared to Arm 1.
conclusionsCollecting self-samples at home yielded more inadequate samples than collecting at a health center; however, self-samples collected at the health post were not significantly different from those collected at the health center. In rural areas, self-sampling at locations proximal to women’s residences but providing privacy may increase screening campaigns’ success. While more work is needed to confirm this finding, home sampling may miss women who should be referred for diagnostic testing.
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.