Repositorio
Institucional

Vega Crespo, Bernardo

Alejandra Neira, Vivian

Ortiz, Jose S.

Maldonado-Rengel, Ruth

Lopez, Diana

Gomez, Andrea

Jose Vicuna, Maria

Mejia, Jorge

Benoy, Ina

Parron Carreno, Tesifon

Verhoeven, Veronique

Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador

MDPI

HEALTHCARE

en

Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years, 40.8% were married, 46.7% had a primary level of education, median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67-52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79-40.72), were more comfortable, granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44-18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83-65.21), were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03-0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0-0.06), were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07-0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01-0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71-9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.

artículo original

10.3390/healthcare10091614

PDF

HPV

self-sampling

urine sampling

vaginal sampling

clinician sampling

acceptability

HPV DNA

WOMEN

COVID-19

IMPACT

Ciencias y Servicios de Atención Médica

Política y servicios de salud

VPH

automuestreo

muestreo de orina

muestreo vaginal

muestreo clínico

aceptabilidad

ADN del VPH

MUJERES

COVID-19

IMPACT

Biotecnología Relacionada con la Salud

Servicios y Cuidados en Ciencias de la Salud (Administración de Hospitales, financiamiento de la atención hospitalaria)

Temas sociales (estudios de la mujer y de género; cuestiones sociales; estudios de familia, trabajo social)

Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador

artículo original

version publicada

CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0

acceso abierto

acceso abierto

WOS:000858276100001