↓ Skip to main content

Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a community-based study in Newfoundland

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a community-based study in Newfoundland
Published in
BMC Women's Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12905-015-0206-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline Duke, Marshall Godwin, Samuel Ratnam, Lesa Dawson, Daniel Fontaine, Adrian Lear, Martha Traverso-Yepez, Wendy Graham, Mohamad Ravalia, Gerry Mugford, Andrea Pike, Jacqueline Fortier, Mandy Peach

Abstract

Cervical cancer is highly preventable and treatable if detected early through regular screening. Women in the Canadian province of Newfoundland & Labrador have relatively low rates of cervical cancer screening, with rates of around 40 % between 2007 and 2009. Persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause for the development of cervical cancer, and HPV testing, including self-sampling, has been suggested as an alternative method of cervical cancer screening that may alleviate some barriers to screening. Our objective was to determine whether offering self-collected HPV testing screening increased cervical cancer screening rates in rural communities. During the 2-year study, three community-based cohorts were assigned to receive either i) a cervical cancer education campaign with the option of HPV testing; ii) an educational campaign alone; iii) or no intervention. Self-collection kits were offered to eligible women at family medicine clinics and community centres, and participants were surveyed to determine their acceptance of the HPV self-collection kit. Paired proportions testing for before-after studies was used to determine differences in screening rates from baseline, and Chi Square analysis of three dimensional 2 × 2 × 2 tables compared the change between communities. Cervical cancer screening increased by 15.2 % (p < 0.001) to 67.4 % in the community where self-collection was available, versus a 2.9 % increase (p = 0.07) in the community that received educational campaigns and 8.5 % in the community with no intervention (p = 0.193). The difference in change in rates was statistically significant between communities A and B (p < 0.001) but not between communities A and C (p = 0.193). The response rate was low, with only 9.5 % (168/1760) of eligible women opting to self-collect for HPV testing. Of the women who completed self-collection, 15.5 % (26) had not had a Pap smear in the last 3 years, and 88.7 % reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied with self-collection. Offering self-collected HPV testing increased the cervical cancer screening rate in a rural NL community. Women who completed self-collection had generally positive feelings about the experience. Offering HPV self-collection may increase screening compliance, particularly among women who do not present for routine Pap smears.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 157 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 6 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 60 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 62 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,278,422
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,641
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,736
of 266,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.