Griffins O Manguro 1, Linnet N Masese 2, Kishor Mandaliya 3, Susan M Graham 4 5, R Scott McClelland 4 5, Jennifer S Smith 6 7
Affiliations
- 1Kenyatta National Hospital, P.O. Box 91109, Mombasa, 80103, Kenya. gmanguro@uw.edu.
- 2Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, P.O Box 357236, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
- 3Pathcare Laboratories, Mombasa, Kenya.
- 4Departments of Epidemiology, Global Health, and Medicine, University of Washington, P.O Box 359909, Seattle, WA, USA.
- 5Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
- 6University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
- 7Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
PMID: 30541595 PMCID: PMC6291975
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-018-0651-z
Erratum in
Manguro GO, Masese LN, Mandaliya K, Graham SM, McClelland RS, Smith JS, Mochache V.Reprod Health. 2019 Oct 30;16(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0812-8.PMID: 31666090
Abstract
Objectives: Self-collection of genital specimens for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection may increase cervical cancer screening uptake. We hypothesized that women would prefer self-collection to clinician-collection of genital specimens. To test this hypothesis, and women’s preference between two different self-collection approaches, a total of 199 women were enrolled in a cross-sectional study in Mombasa, Kenya.
Materials and methods: Participants provided self-collected specimens using the Evalyn cytobrush (Rovers) stored in a dry tube and the Viba cytobrush (Rovers) stored in wet Aptima media (Hologic). A clinician also collected cervical specimens for hrHPV testing and for cytology, and performed visual inspection using acetic acid. A post-examination questionnaire assessed preferences for the different methods of specimen collection. To test the difference in proportions for each collection method, we performed an exact binomial probability test, under the null hypothesis that women would prefer each specimen-collection method equally.
Results: Most women preferred clinician-collection over self-collection (68% versus 32%, p < 0.01). For self-collection, dry-self collection with the Evalyn brush was preferred over the wet-selection with the Viba brush (53% versus 27%, p < 0.01). There was no association between preference for self-collection and preference for a particular self-collection cytobrush.
Conclusion: Further research to understand and address obstacles to self-collection of genital specimens may be needed to improve the uptake of self-collection for cervical cancer screening, especially in settings with poor access to trained healthcare providers.
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Clinician-collection; HrHPV; Kenya; Screening; Self-collection.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the ethical review committees of the University of Nairobi/Kenyatta National Hospital and the University of Washington. All participants provided written informed consent before enrollment into the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Link
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30541595/
