↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to HPV self-sampling and cytology among low-income indigenous women in rural areas of a middle-income setting: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 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
Barriers to HPV self-sampling and cytology among low-income indigenous women in rural areas of a middle-income setting: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3723-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Betania Allen-Leigh, Patricia Uribe-Zúñiga, Leith León-Maldonado, Brandon J. Brown, Attila Lörincz, Jorge Salmeron, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce

Abstract

Data is needed about barriers to self-collection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) samples and cytology among low-income, disadvantaged women living in rural areas of lower-income countries as these women are at increased risk of cervical cancer mortality. Individual interviews (n = 29), focus groups (n = 7, 5-11 participants) and discussion groups (n = 2, 18-25 participants) were organized with women from three indigenous ethnic groups residing in rural areas in Mexico, after they were provided with free, self-sampled HPV tests. These groups are low-income, underserved by healthcare and have historically been on the receiving end of racism and social exclusion. Descriptive, qualitative content analysis was done, including two cycles of coding. Interview and focus/discussion group data indicate women had limited understanding of HPV's role in cervical cancer etiology. They identified HPV's existence, that cytology detects cervical cancer, the need for regular testing and that cervical cancer is sexually transmitted. Organizational barriers to clinic-based cytology included irregular supplies of disposable speculums, distance to clinics and lack of clear communication by healthcare personnel. Women considered self-collected HPV-testing easy, less embarrassing and less painful than cytology, an opportunity for self-care and most felt they understood how to take a self-sample after a 20-min explanation. Some women feared hurting themselves when taking the self-sample or that they would take the sample incorrectly, which they worried would make the test useless. Attending HPV-testing in groups facilitated use by allowing women to discuss their doubts and fears before doing self-collection of the sample or to ask other women who were the first to do the self-sampling what the experience had been like (whether it hurt and how easy it was). Lack of indoor bathrooms was a barrier to doing HPV self-sampling at home, when those homes were resource-poor (one-room dwellings). Low-income, indigenous Mexican women residing in rural, underserved areas identified their need for cervical cancer screening but encountered multiple barriers to cytology-based screening. They found a number of advantages of HPV self-sampled tests. Employing self-collected HPV-testing instead of cytology could resolve some but not all gender-related, organizational or technical quality-of-care issues within cervical cancer detection and control programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 95 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 106 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,026,417
of 24,059,832 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,291
of 8,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,013
of 335,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#22
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,059,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,542 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 335,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.