Search

Under-screened women are more likely to be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer at later stages and have worse survival outcomes. Under- or un-insured women, low-income women, and minoritized groups face barriers to screening. Intention to screen is an indicator of future screening behavior, yet is understudied among low-income, under-screened women. Participants were 710 low-income, uninsured or publicly insured women ages 25–64 years in North Carolina who were not up to date on cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Participants were asked about barriers to screening and intention to screen. We estimated reported barriers to cervical cancer screening stratified by race and ethnicity (categorized as White, Black, and Hispanic) and assessed predictors of intention to screen. Sixty-one percent of all participants reported 5 or more barriers to screening. The most commonly reported reasons for not getting screened were lack of insurance (White: 71%, Black: 62%, Hispanic/Latina: 63%) and cost (White: 55%, Black: 44%, Hispanic/Latina: 61%). Women were more likely to have an intention to screen if they reported “it was not hard to get screening” (OR: 1.47 (1.00, 2.15)). Older women reported being less likely to intend to screen. Black women reported being more likely to intend to screen than White women. Lack of health insurance and cost were frequently reported barriers to cervical cancer screening. Increasing knowledge of affordable clinics and expanding access to Medicaid may reduce barriers and increase cervical cancer screening uptake.

Background Cervical cancer is highly preventable with regular screening, yet over 4,000 women die from it annually in the United States. Over half of new cervical cancer cases in the U.S. are attributable to insufficient screening. Methods Participants were 23 low-income, uninsured or Medicaid-insured women in North Carolina who were overdue for cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Semi-structured interviews examined perspectives on barriers to cervical cancer screening and on interventions to reduce these barriers. We also elicited feedback on three proposed evidence-based interventions: one-on-one education, coupons to reduce out-of-pocket costs, and self-collection of samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the primary cause of cervical cancer. Results Reported barriers included high cost, inconvenient clinic hours, lack of provider recommendation, poor transportation, difficulty finding a provider, fear of pain, and low perceived need. Participants suggested interventions including reducing cost, improving convenience through community-based screening or extended clinic hours, strengthening provider recommendations, and providing one-on-one counseling and education outreach. HPV self-collection was most frequently selected as the “most helpful” of 3 proposed interventions (n = 11), followed by reducing out-of-pocket costs (n = 7) and one-on-one education (n = 5). Conclusion Cost was the most reported barrier to cervical cancer screening, although women experience multiple simultaneous barriers. Novel interventions such as HPV self-collection promise to reduce some, but not all, barriers to primary screening. Interventions that work on reducing multiple barriers, including obstacles to receiving follow-up care, may be most effective to prevent cervical cancer among these high-risk women.

Background: Despite screening's effectiveness in reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality, disparities in cervical cancer screening uptake remain, with lower rates documented among uninsured and low-income individuals. We examined perceived financial barriers to, and the perceived cost burden of, cervical cancer screening. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 702 low-income, uninsured or publicly insured women ages 25–64 years in North Carolina, U.S., who were not up to date on cervical cancer screening according to national guidelines. Participants were asked about perceived financial barriers to screening and how much they perceived screening would cost. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the sociodemographic predictors of perceived financial barriers. Results: Seventy-two percent of participants perceived financial barriers to screening. Screening appointment costs (71%) and follow-up/future treatment costs (44%) were most commonly reported, followed by lost pay due to time missed from work (6%) and transportation costs (5%). In multivariable analysis, being uninsured (vs. publicly insured), younger (25–34 vs. 50–64 years), White (vs. Black), and not reporting income data were associated with perceiving screening costs and future treatment costs as barriers to screening. Participants reported wide-ranging estimates of the perceived out-of-pocket cost of screening ($0–$1300), with a median expected cost of $245. Conclusions: The majority of our sample of low-income women perceived substantial financial barriers to screening, particularly related to screening appointment costs and potential follow-up/future treatment costs. Providing greater cost transparency and access to financial assistance may reduce perceived financial barriers to screening, potentially increasing screening uptake among this underserved population. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02651883.

BackgroundScreening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. More than half of invasive cervical cancers are attributable to infrequent screening or not screening at all. The current study, My Body My Test (MBMT), evaluates the impact of mailed kits for self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on completion of cervical cancer screening in low-income, North Carolina women overdue for cervical cancer screening.Methods/designThe study will enroll at least 510 US women aged 25–64 years who report no Pap test in the last 4 years and no HPV test in the last 6 years. We will randomize participants to an intervention or control arm. The intervention arm will receive kits to self-collect a sample at home and mail it for HPV testing. In both the intervention and control arms, participants will receive assistance in scheduling an appointment for screening in clinic. Study staff will deliver HPV self-collection results by phone and assist in scheduling participants for screening in clinic. The primary outcome is completion of cervical cancer screening. Specifically, completion of screening will be defined as screening in clinic or receipt of negative HPV self-collection results. Women with HPV-negative self-collection results will be considered screening-complete. All other participants will be considered screening-complete if they obtain co-testing or Pap test screening at a study-affiliated institution or other clinic. We will assess whether the self-collection intervention influences participants’ perceived risk of cervical cancer and whether perceived risk mediates the relationship between HPV self-collection results and subsequent screening in clinic. We also will estimate the incremental cost per woman screened of offering at-home HPV self-collection kits with scheduling assistance as compared to offering scheduling assistance alone.DiscussionIf mailed self-collection of samples for HPV testing is an effective strategy for increasing cervical cancer screening among women overdue for screening, this method has the potential to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality in medically underserved women at higher risk of developing cervical cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT02651883, Registered on 11 January 2016.

Background: Approximately one-half of cervical cancer cases in the United States occur in underscreened or never-screened women. We examined predictors to completing Papanicolaou (Pap) testing and whether a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection result affects Pap testing adherence among underscreened women. Materials and Methods: Low-income women aged 30–65 years who reported no Pap testing in ≥4 years were recruited in North Carolina. Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers regarding cervical cancer and Pap testing were assessed by telephone questionnaires. We mailed self-collection kits for HPV testing and provided information regarding where to obtain affordable Pap testing. Participants received $45 for completing all activities. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the predictors of longer reported time since last Pap (≥10 vs. 4–9 years) and of completion of Pap testing following study enrollment (follow-up Pap). Results: Participants (n = 230) were primarily black (55%), uninsured (64%), and with ≤high school education (59%). Cost and finding an affordable clinic were the most commonly reported barriers to screening. White women and those with ≤high school education reported longer intervals since last Pap test. Half of the participants reported completing a follow-up Pap test (55%). Women with a positive HPV self-collection were five times more likely to report completing a follow-up Pap test than those with negative self-collection (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval 1.4–25.7). Conclusions: Improving awareness of resources for affordable screening could increase cervical cancer screening in underserved women. Home-based HPV self-collection represents an opportunity to re-engage infrequently screened women into preventive screening services.

To evaluate the validity and acceptability of at-home self-collection to test for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and sexually transmitted infections among women overdue for cervical cancer screening by national guidelines.Low-income, infrequently screened women were recruited from the general population in North Carolina to participate in an observational study. Participants provided two self-collected cervicovaginal samples (one at home and one in the clinic) and a clinician-collected cervical sample. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Mycoplasma genitalium. Cervical samples were also tested by liquid-based cytology.Overall, 193 women had conclusive high-risk HPV results for all three samples and cytology results. Prevalence of high-risk HPV within self-home samples (12.4%) was not different from that within clinician samples (11.4%; P=.79) and from that within self clinic samples (15.5%; P=.21). Positivity for high-risk HPV in all sample types increased with increasing grades of cervical abnormality (P.001). Self-home samples detected high-risk HPV in all identified cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse. Detection was comparable across sample types for T vaginalis (range 10.2-10.8%), M genitalium (3.3-5.5%), C trachomatis (1.1-2.1%), and N gonorrhoeae (0-0.5%). Kappa values between sample types ranged from 0.56 to 0.66 for high-risk HPV, 0.86-0.91 for T vaginalis, and 0.65-0.83 for M genitalium. Most participants reported no difficulty understanding self-collection instructions (93.6%) and were willing to use self-collection in the future (96.3%).Mail-based, at-home self-collection for high-risk HPV and sexually transmitted infection detection was valid and well accepted among infrequently screened women in our study. These findings support the future use of high-risk HPV self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening rates among higher risk women in the United States.

Background Testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection using mailed, self-collected samples is a promising approach to increase screening in women who do not attend clinic screening at recommended intervals. Methods To assess this intervention among high-risk women in the United States, 429 women without a Papanicolaou (Pap) test in 4 or more years (overdue by US guidelines) were recruited from the general population. Participants aged 30 to 65 years were mailed a kit to self-collect a cervicovaginal sample at home, return the sample by mail, and receive HPV results by telephone, with referral to follow-up cytological Pap testing at a local clinic. Cervicovaginal self-samples were collected with a Viba brush, stored in Scope mouthwash, and tested by Hybrid Capture 2. Data were collected in 2010 to 2011 and analyzed in 2017. Results Two-thirds (64%) of participants returned a self-collected sample, of whom 15% tested HPV DNA positive. Human papillomavirus self-test-positive women reported higher rates of follow-up Pap tests (82%) than did those with self-test negative results (51%). No demographic differences were found in self-test return rate or HPV positivity. High acceptability was reported in participant surveys: most women (81%) had "mostly positive" overall thoughts about the self-test, and most reported being comfortable receiving the kit in the mail (99%), returning their self-collected sample by mail (82%), and receiving their test results by telephone (97%). Conclusions Conducting HPV self-testing through population-based recruitment, mailed kit delivery and return by mail, and results delivery by telephone has the potential to reach a broad segment of US underscreened women.

Objective: Women without regular health care providers or a medical home routinely fail to complete recommended cervical cancer screening. At-home self-collection of samples to test for high-risk s...

OBJECTIVES Self-collection of samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (self-collection) has the potential to increase cervical cancer screening among underscreened women. We assessed attitudes toward at-home HPV self-collection compared with clinic-based Pap testing in this higher-risk population. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants were low-income women in North Carolina overdue for cervical cancer screening. Women self-collected samples at home, returned samples by mail for HPV testing, and completed phone questionnaires about at-home HPV self-collection. Participants were referred to clinic-based Pap testing and invited to complete a second questionnaire about Pap testing. A cross-sectional questionnaire compared attitudes, experiences, and preferences for self-collection versus Pap testing and assessed predictors of preference for HPV self-collection. RESULTS Half (51%) of 221 women reported a preference for HPV self-collection, 19% preferred Pap testing, and 27% reported no preference. More women reported difficulty finding time to do the Pap test (31%) than the self-test (13%, p = .003) and being afraid of the self-test results (50%) than the Pap test results (36%, p = .02). There were relatively fewer reports of physical discomfort and pain from self-collection than Pap testing (discomfort: 18% self; 48% Pap; pain: 8% self; 30% Pap, p = .001). No differences were found in positive versus negative thoughts about the tests, trust in the tests' safety and accuracy, or willingness to do tests again. CONCLUSIONS Overall positive attitudes toward HPV self-collection compared with Pap testing among underscreened women suggest that self-collection is a promising option to increase cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.

ObjectivesSelf-collection of cervico-vaginal samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has the potential to make cervical cancer screening more accessible to underscreened women. We evaluated the acceptability and ease of use of home-based HPV self-collection within a diverse population of low-income, infrequently screened women.MethodsParticipants were low-income women from North Carolina who had not received Pap testing in 4 or more years. Eligible women received a self-collection kit containing instructions and a brush for home-based sample collection. A total of 227 women returned a self-collected sample by mail and completed a questionnaire to assess their experiences with HPV self-collection. We described acceptability measures and used logistic regression to identify predictors of overall positive thoughts about the self-collection experience.ResultsNearly all women were willing to perform HPV self-collection again (98%) and were comfortable receiving the self-collection kit in the mail (99%). Overall, 81% of participants reported positive thoughts about home-based self-collection. Women with at least some college education and those who were divorced, separated or widowed were more likely to report overall positive thoughts. Aspects of self-collection that participants most commonly reported liking included convenience (53%), ease of use (32%) and privacy (23%). The most frequently reported difficulties included uncertainty that the self-collection was done correctly (16%) and difficulty inserting the self-collection brush (16%).ConclusionsHome-based self-collection for HPV was a highly acceptable screening method among low-income, underscreened women and holds the promise to increase access to cervical cancer screening in this high-risk population.