↓ Skip to main content

Comparing self- and provider-collected swabbing for HPV DNA testing in female-to-male transgender adult patients: a mixed-methods biobehavioral study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing self- and provider-collected swabbing for HPV DNA testing in female-to-male transgender adult patients: a mixed-methods biobehavioral study protocol
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2539-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sari L. Reisner, Madeline B. Deutsch, Sarah M. Peitzmeier, Jaclyn M. White Hughto, Timothy Cavanaugh, Dana J. Pardee, Sarah McLean, Elliot J. Marrow, Matthew J. Mimiaga, Lori Panther, Marcy Gelman, Jamison Green, Jennifer Potter

Abstract

Cervical cancer, nearly all cases of which are caused by one of several high-risk strains of the human papillomavirus (hr-HPV), leads to significant morbidity and mortality in individuals with a cervix. Trans masculine (TM) individuals were born with female reproductive organs and identify as male, man, transgender man, or another diverse gender identity different from their female assigned sex at birth. Routine preventive sexual health screening of TM patients is recommended, including screening for cervical cancer and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs); however, as many as one in three TM patients are not up-to-date per recommended U.S. Among cisgender (non-transgender) women, self-swab hr.-HPV DNA testing as a primary cervical cancer screening method and self-swab specimen collection for other STIs have high levels of acceptability. No study has yet been conducted to compare the performance and acceptability of self- and provider-collected swabs for hr.-HPV DNA testing and other STIs in TM patients. This article describes the study protocol for a mixed-methods biobehavioral investigation enrolling 150 sexually active TM to (1) assess the clinical performance and acceptability of a vaginal self-swab for hr.-HPV DNA testing compared to provider cervical swab and cervical cytology, and (2) gather acceptability data on self-collected specimens for other STIs. Study participation entails a one-time clinical visit at Fenway Health in Boston, MA comprised of informed consent, quantitative assessment, venipuncture for syphilis testing and HIV (Rapid OraQuick) testing, randomization, collection of biological specimens/biomarkers, participant and provider satisfaction survey, and qualitative exit interview. Participants are compensated $100. The primary study outcomes are concordance (kappa statistic) and performance (sensitivity and specificity) of self-collected vaginal HPV DNA specimens vs provider-collected cervical HPV swabs as a gold standard. This study addresses critical gaps in current clinical knowledge of sexual health in TM patients, including comparing alternative strategies for screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer, hr.-HPV, and other STIs. Findings have implications for improving the delivery of sexual health screening to this often overlooked and underserved patient population. Less-invasive patient-centered strategies may also generalize to other at-risk cisgender female populations that face barriers to timely and needed STI and cervical cancer screening. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02401867.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 56 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 16%
Psychology 15 8%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 67 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,062,520
of 11,438,239 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#349
of 4,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,091
of 262,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#10
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,438,239 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,256 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.