scholarly journals Women’s preferences and experiences of cervical cancer screening in rural and remote areas: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umair Majid ◽  
Sujane Kandasamy ◽  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Meredith Vanstone
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Remote Areas ◽  
Rural And Remote Areas ◽  
Women’S Preferences

scholarly journals Uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling in rural and remote Aboriginal communities: Evaluation of a nurse-led community engagement model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tegan Dutton ◽  
Jo Marjoram ◽  
Shellie Burgess ◽  
Laurinne Campbell ◽  
Anne Vail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Service Model ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Aboriginal Women ◽  
Never Screened

Abstract Background: Aboriginal women experience disproportionately higher rates of cervical cancer mortality yet are less likely to participate in screening for early detection. This study sought to determine whether a community-based HPV self-sampling service model can effectively recruit never-screened and under-screened Aboriginal women to participate in cervical cancer screening; assess the clinical outcomes; and explore the acceptability of the model from the perspective of the participants.Methods: Aboriginal women aged 25-69 years of age were recruited from eight rural and remote communities in New South Wales, Australia to participate in HPV self-sampling via a community-based service model. Outcome measures were: number of women screened by HPV self-sampling, their prior cervical screening status (under-screened or never-screened), clinical outcomes and participation in follow-up pathways of care, and satisfaction with the service model.Results: In total, 215 women conducted a HPV self-sampling test and 200 evaluation surveys were completed. One-fifth of participants (n=46) were never-screened and one-third (n=69) were under-screened. Many were unsure of their screening status. Nine women were HPV 16/18 positive and eight had completed all follow up by the conclusion of the study. A further 30 women tested positive for a high risk type other than HPV 16/18 (HPV other), of which 14 had completed follow up at the conclusion of the study. Satisfaction with the HPV self-sampling kit, the process of self-sampling and the service model was high (>92% satisfied on all items). Many women had difficulty understanding their official HPV results and placed high importance on the nurse explaining it to them.Conclusions: A community-based service model that respects Aboriginal Women’s Business can effectively recruit under-screened and never-screened Aboriginal women to complete cervical cancer screening. Furthermore, this service model supports them to complete recommended follow-up care and engage with their local existing health services.

scholarly journals International barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Shannon Leung ◽  
Xinglin Li ◽  
Matthew Yau ◽  
Mara Sobel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Young People ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Age Group

Background Though cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally, its incidence is nearly entirely preventable. Young people have been an international priority for screening. However, in both high-income and low-income countries, young people have not been screened appropriately according to country-specific guidelines and in many countries, screening rates for this age-group have even dropped. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the existing literature on barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people globally. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of four databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Selection Criteria We only examined original, peer-reviewed literature. Databases were examined from inception until the date of our literature searches (12/03/2020). Articles were excluded if they did not specifically discuss cervical cancer screening, were not specific to young people, or did not report outcomes or evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis All screening and extraction was completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers. Main Results Of the 2177 original database citations, we included 36 studies that met inclusion criteria. Our systematic review found that there are three large categories of barriers for young people: lack of knowledge/awareness, negative perceptions of the test, and practical barriers to testing. Facilitators included stronger relationships with healthcare providers, social norms, support from family, and self-efficacy. Conclusions Health systems worldwide should address the barriers and facilitators to increase cervical cancer screening rates in young people. Further research is required to understand this age group.

scholarly journals Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e001351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Hugo de Vuyst ◽  
Manjulaa Narasimhan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Screening Frequency

IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling test kits may increase screening for and early detection of cervical cancer and reduce its burden globally. To inform WHO self-care guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling among adult women on cervical (pre-)cancer screening uptake, screening frequency, social harms/adverse events and linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.MethodsThe included studies compared women using cervical cancer screening services with HPV self-sampling with women using standard of care, measured at least one outcome, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CNIAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Embase through October 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).Results33 studies in 34 articles with 369 017 total participants met the inclusion criteria: 29 RCTs and 4 observational studies. All studies examined HPV self-sampling; comparison groups were standard of care (eg, Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, clinician-collected HPV testing). 93% of participants were from high-income countries. All 33 studies measured cervical cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis found greater screening uptake among HPV self-sampling participants compared with control (RR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40). Effect size varied by HPV test kit dissemination method, whether mailed directly to home (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.71), offered door-to-door (RR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) or requested on demand (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.82). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in linkage to clinical assessment/treatment between arms (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.57). No studies measured screening frequency or social harms/adverse events.ConclusionA growing evidence base, mainly from high-income countries and with significant heterogeneity, suggests HPV self-sampling can increase cervical cancer screening uptake compared with standard of care, with a marginal effect on linkage to clinical assessment/treatment.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018114871.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document