TY - JOUR
T1 - Experiences and preferences towards collecting a urine and cervicovaginal self-sample among women attending a colposcopy clinic
AU - Schaafsma, Mirte
AU - van den Helder, Rianne
AU - Bleeker, Maaike C. G.
AU - Rosier-van Dunné, Fleur
AU - van der Avoort, Irene A. M.
AU - Steenbergen, Renske D. M.
AU - van Trommel, Nienke E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Hanarth Foundation, the Weijerhorst Foundation and the KWF Dutch Cancer Society. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/4/1
Y1 - 2022/4/1
N2 - The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening is hampered by low attendance rates. The collection of a urine sample is hypothesized to engage non-attenders in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate experiences of women on urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling in a home-based setting and preferences for future cervical cancer screening. This study included 140 women, with a median age of 40 years, who were planned for a large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) procedure. All women collected a urine sample using conventional urine cups and a cervicovaginal self-sample prior to the LLETZ in a home-based setting. Following sample collection, women filled in a questionnaire. Results showed that the instructions of urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling were considered clear (95%, 95%CI: 88–98; 92%, 95%CI: 83–96, respectively). Women considered urine collection compared to cervicovaginal self-sampling to be more acceptable (p < 0.001), and to provide more reliable results (p < 0.001). The three highest reported preferred sampling methods for future cervical cancer screening were: urine collection (n = 39, 28%, 95%CI: 19–39), clinician-taken cervical scrape (n = 32, 23%, 95%CI: 15–34), and equal preference for urine collection, clinician-taken cervical scrape and cervicovaginal self-sampling (n = 30, 21%, 95%CI: 14–32). In conclusion, urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling are acceptable sampling methods, considered easy to collect in a home-based setting, and moreover, considered trustworthy. Although these results are promising, more research is required to determine if urine collection also lowers the barrier for non-attendees and, thereby, increases the attendance rates of cervical cancer screening.
AB - The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening is hampered by low attendance rates. The collection of a urine sample is hypothesized to engage non-attenders in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate experiences of women on urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling in a home-based setting and preferences for future cervical cancer screening. This study included 140 women, with a median age of 40 years, who were planned for a large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) procedure. All women collected a urine sample using conventional urine cups and a cervicovaginal self-sample prior to the LLETZ in a home-based setting. Following sample collection, women filled in a questionnaire. Results showed that the instructions of urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling were considered clear (95%, 95%CI: 88–98; 92%, 95%CI: 83–96, respectively). Women considered urine collection compared to cervicovaginal self-sampling to be more acceptable (p < 0.001), and to provide more reliable results (p < 0.001). The three highest reported preferred sampling methods for future cervical cancer screening were: urine collection (n = 39, 28%, 95%CI: 19–39), clinician-taken cervical scrape (n = 32, 23%, 95%CI: 15–34), and equal preference for urine collection, clinician-taken cervical scrape and cervicovaginal self-sampling (n = 30, 21%, 95%CI: 14–32). In conclusion, urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling are acceptable sampling methods, considered easy to collect in a home-based setting, and moreover, considered trustworthy. Although these results are promising, more research is required to determine if urine collection also lowers the barrier for non-attendees and, thereby, increases the attendance rates of cervical cancer screening.
KW - Cervical cancer
KW - Experience
KW - Preference
KW - Self-sampling
KW - Urine collection
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125529993&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749
DO - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101749
M3 - Article
C2 - 35256928
SN - 2211-3355
VL - 26
JO - Preventive Medicine Reports
JF - Preventive Medicine Reports
M1 - 101749
ER -