Anita Lim

Experiences of Self‐Sampling and Future Screening Preferences in Non‐Attenders Who Returned an HPV Vaginal Self‐Sample in the YouScreen Study: Findings From a Cross‐Sectional Questionnaire

ABSTRACTBackgroundWe assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self‐sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening.Setting and ParticipantsA postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self‐sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non‐completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow‐up test if HPV‐positive were evaluated using Pearson's χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self‐sampling.ResultsMost kit‐completers reported high confidence in self‐sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free‐text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self‐sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician‐taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self‐tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds.ConclusionsKit‐completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self‐sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self‐sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important.Patient or Public ContributionWe did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet).Trial RegistrationThis questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934.

Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial

BackgroundCervical cancer disproportionately affects women ≥65 years, especially those not screened regularly. Speculum use is a key barrier.AimTo assess if offering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling increases uptake for lapsed attenders aged 50–64 years.Design and settingPragmatic randomised control trial conducted at 10 general practices in East London, UK.MethodParticipants were 784 women aged 50–64 years, last screened 6–15 years before randomisation. Intervention participants received a letter offering the choice of non-speculum clinician- or self-sampling. Control participants received usual care. The main outcome measure was uptake within 4 months.ResultsScreening uptake 4 months after randomisation was significantly higher in the intervention arm: 20.4% (n = 80/393) versus 4.9% in the control arm (n = 19/391, absolute difference 15.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.0% to 20.0%, P<0.001). This was maintained at 12 months: intervention 30.5% (n = 120/393) versus control 13.6% (n = 53/391) (absolute difference 17.0%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 22.7%, P<0.001). Conventional screening attendance within 12 months was very similar for both intervention 12.7% (n = 50/393) and control 13.6% (n = 53/391) arms. Ethnic differences were seen in screening modality preference. More White women opted for self-sampling (50.7%, n = 38/75), whereas most Asian and Black women and those from other ethnic backgrounds opted for conventional screening.ConclusionOffering non-speculum clinician-taken sampling and self-sampling substantially increases uptake in older lapsed attendee women. Non-speculum clinician sampling appeals to women who dislike the speculum but still prefer a clinician to take their sample. Providing a choice of screening modality may be important for optimising cervical screening uptake.

Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England

Objectives This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening. Setting and Methods An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed. Results Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In ‘never attenders’, self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups. Conclusions If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.

Human papillomavirus genotype and cycle threshold value from self-samples and risk of high-grade cervical lesions: A post hoc analysis of a modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing of self-collected vaginal samples has potential to improve coverage of cervical screening programmes, but current guidelines mostly require those HPV positive on a self-sample to attend for routine screening. Methods and findings A pragmatic modified stepped-wedge implementation feasibility trial was conducted at primary care practices in England. Individuals aged 25 to 64 years who were at least 6 months overdue for cervical screening could provide a self-collected sample. The primary outcomes included the monthly proportion of non-attenders screened, changes in coverage, and uptake within 90 days. Self-samples from 7,739 individuals were analysed using Roche Cobas 4800. Individuals with a positive self-sample were encouraged to attend clinical screening. In this post hoc study of the trial, we related the HPV type (HPV16, HPV18, or other high-risk type) and cycle threshold (Ct) value on the self-sample to the results of clinician-collected sample and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). We wished to triage HPV–positive individuals to immediate colposcopy, clinician sampling, or 12-month recall depending on risk. A total of 1,001 women tested positive through self-samples, and 855 women who had both an HPV–positive self-sample and a subsequent clinician-sample were included in this study. Of these, 71 (8.3%) had CIN2+. Self-sample Ct values were highly predictive of HPV in the clinician sample. Combining HPV type and Ct value allowed stratification into 3 risk groups; 44/855 (5%) were high-risk of whom 43% (19/44, 95% confidence interval [29.7%, 57.8%]) had CIN2+. The majority (52.9%, 452/855) were low-risk, of whom 4% (18/452, 95% CI [2.5%, 6.2%]) had CIN2+. The main limitation of our study was the colposcopy assessment was restricted to individuals who had abnormal cytology after positive results of both self-sample and clinician-collected sample. Conclusions HPV type and Ct value on HPV–positive self-samples may be used for triage. The difference in the risk of CIN2+ in these groups appears sufficient to justify differential clinical management. A prospective study employing such triage to evaluate laboratory workflow, acceptability, and follow-up procedure and to optimise clinical performance seems warranted. Trial Registration ISRCTN12759467.