Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Cancer. 2016 Mar 15;16:221. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2246-9.

Self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: comparison of a brush-based and a lavage-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device.

Author information

1
Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, FI-00130, Helsinki, Finland. liisa.karjalainen@helsinki.fi.
2
Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, FI-00130, Helsinki, Finland.
3
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Jorvi Hospital, Turuntie 150, Espoo, Finland.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

High coverage and attendance is essential for cervical cancer screening success. We investigated whether the previous positive experiences on increasing screening attendance by self-sampling in Finland are sampler device dependent.

METHODS:

All women identified to cervical cancer screening in 2013 in 28 Finnish municipalities were randomised to receive a lavage- (n = 6030) or a brush type of self-sampling device (n = 6045) in case of non-attendance after two invitation letters. Seven hundred seventy non-attending women in the lavage device group and 734 in the brush group received the self-sampling offer. Women's experiences were enquired with an enclosed questionnaire.

RESULTS:

Total attendance in the lavage group increased from 71.0 to 77.7% by reminder letters and further to 80.5% by self-sampling. Respective increase in the brush group was from 72.2 to 78.6% and then to 81.5%. The participation by self-sampling was 21.7% (95% CI 18.8-24.6) in the lavage group and 23.8% (95% CI 20.8-26.9) in the brush group. Women's self-sampling experiences were mainly positive and the sampler devices were equally well accepted by the women.

CONCLUSION:

Our study shows that the lavage device and brush device perform similarly in terms of uptake by non-attending women and user comfort. If self-sampling is integrated to the routine screening program in Finland, either of the devices can be chosen without the fear of losing participants due to a less acceptable device.

KEYWORDS:

Acceptability; Cervical cancer screening; HPV; Self-sampling; Socio-demographic factors

PMID:
26979237
PMCID:
PMC4791879
DOI:
10.1186/s12885-016-2246-9
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center