Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

HPV self-sampling among women in the United States: preferences for implementation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

With the inclusion of primary HPV testing in 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce guidelines, at-home HPV self-sampling may provide a future option for cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations in the U.S. This study evaluated the association of implementation preferences with the willingness of at-home HPV self-sampling.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 2018 among U.S. women ages 30–65 years, without a hysterectomy (n = 812). The outcome was willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling (yes/no). Primary predictor variables (i.e., information source, methods of payment, methods of sending or receiving self-sampling kits) measured self-sampling implementation preferences. Adjusted logistic regression identified associations with willingness to have at-home HPV self-sampling.

Results

Participants who preferred receiving information from healthcare providers (OR = 2.64; 95% CI 1.54,4.52) or from media or other sources (OR = 2.30; 95% CI 1.51,3.48) had higher HPV self-sampling willingness than participants who did not prefer those sources. Participants who did not want to pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.21; 95% CI 0.14,0.32) or did not know if they would pay for self-sampling (OR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.22,0.54) had lower odds of HPV self-sampling willingness compared to participants willing to pay. Participants who did not know which method they preferred for receiving a self-sampling kit (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07,0.31) or preferred delivering the sample to the lab themselves (OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.36,0.96) had lower odds for self-sampling willingness compared to participants who preferred the mail.

Conclusion

Understanding the preferences of women regarding the implementation of HPV self-sampling can improve uptake in cervical cancer screening, especially among hard-to-reach populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed for the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. (2023). Key Statistics for Cervical Cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html.

  2. Lewis RM, Laprise JF, Gargano JW, Unger ER, Querec TD, Chesson HW, Brisson M, Markowitz LE (2021) Estimated prevalence and incidence of disease-associated human papillomavirus types among 15- to 59-year-olds in the united states. Sex Transm Dis 48(4):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001356

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M et al (2014) Human papillomavirus vaccination: recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 63:1–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burger EA, Smith MA, Killen J et al (2020) Projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in the USA: a comparative modelling study. Lancet Public Health 5(4):e213–e222

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Carreon J, Devesa SS (2005) Mortality trends for cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma in the United States relation to incidence and survival. Cancer 103(6):1258–1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Melnikow J, Henderson JT, Burda BU, Senger CA, Durbin S, Weyrich MS (2018) Screening for Cervical Cancer with high-risk human papillomavirus testing: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 320(7):687–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK et al (2018) Screening for Cervical Cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 320(7):674–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arbyn M, Castle PE (2015) Offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing to reach women who do not attend in the regular cervical cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24(5):769–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith M, Lew JB, Simms K, Canfell K (2016) Impact of HPV sample self-collection for underscreened women in the renewed cervical screening program. Med J Aust 204(5):1941e–11947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Arbyn M et al (2013) High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 132(10):2223–2236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nelson EJ, Maynard BR, Loux T, Fatla J, Gordon R, Arnold LD (2017) The acceptability of self-sampled screening for HPV DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 93(1):56–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fedewa SA, Star J, Bandi P, Minihan A, Han X, Yabroff KR, Jemal A (2022) Changes in Cancer Screening in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open 5(6):e2215490. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15490

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Perkins RB (2021) Impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening: challenges and opportunities to improving resilience and reduce disparities. Prev Med 151:106596

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bishop E, Katz ML, Reiter PL (2019) Acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling among a national sample of women in the United States. Biores Open Access 8(1):65–73

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jayasinghe Y, Rangiah C, Gorelik A et al (2016) Primary HPV DNA based cervical cancer screening at 25 years: views of young Australian women aged 16–28 years. J Clin Virol 76(1):S74–S80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mao C, Kulasingam SL, Whitham HK, Hawes SE, Lin J, Kiviat NB (2017) Clinician and patient acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 26(6):609–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kobetz E, Seay J, Koru-Sengul T et al (2018) A randomized trial of mailed HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women in South Florida. Cancer Causes Control 29(9):793–801

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Flowers P, Vojt G, Pothoulaki M et al (2023) Understanding the barriers and facilitators to using self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infections and blood-borne viruses: thematic analyses for intervention optimization. Br J Health Psychol 28(1):156–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson EL, Galvin AM, Daley EM, Tatar O, Zimet GD, Rosberger Z (2020) Recent changes in cervical cancer screening guidelines: U.S. women’s willingness for HPV testing instead of Pap testing. Prev Med. 130:105928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2018). U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2017 submission data (1999–2015). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute. www.cdc.gov/cancer/dataviz.

  21. Adegboyega A, Wiggins AT, Williams LB, Dignan M (2022) HPV testing behaviors and willingness to use HPV self-samling at home among African American (AA) and Sub-Saharan African Immigrant (SAI) women. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 9(6):2485–2494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01184-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kepka D, Rutkoski H, Pappas L et al (2019) US oral health students’ willingness to train and administer the HPV vaccine in dental practices. Prev Med Rep 15:100957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100957

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Marlow LAV, Chorley AJ, Haddrell J, Ferrer R, Waller J (2017) Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: data from a national sample of British women. Eur J Cancer 80:30–38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Peeters E, Cornet K, Cammu H, Verhoeven V, Devroey D, Arbyn M (2020) Efficacy of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: GPs offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing versus recommendations to have a pap smear taken—a randomised controlled trial. Papillomavirus Res 9:100194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Meissner HI, Potosky AL, Convissor R (1992) How sources of health information relate to knowledge and use of cancer screening exams. J Community Health 17(3):153–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tatar O, Wade K, McBride E et al (2020) Are health care professionals prepared to implement human papillomavirus testing? a review of psychosocial determinants of human papillomavirus test acceptability in primary cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 29(3):390–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Qin J, Shahangian S, Saraiya M, Holt H, Gagnon M, Sawaya GF (2021) Trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests in a large medical claims database, United States, 2013–2019. Gynecol Oncol 163(2):378–384

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hood L, Auffray C (2013) Participatory medicine: a driving force for revolutionizing healthcare. Genome Med 5(12):110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Arrossi S, Thouyaret L, Herrero R et al (2015) Effect of self-collection of HPV DNA offered by community health workers at home visits on uptake of screening for cervical cancer (the EMA study): a population-based cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health 3(2):e85-94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Steben M, Norris T, Rosberger Z, Action HPVG (2020) COVID-19 won’t be the last (Or Worst) pandemic: it’s time to build resilience into our cervical cancer elimination goals. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 42(10):1195–1196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Trivedi N, Krakow M, Hyatt Hawkins K, Peterson EB, Chou W-YS (2020) “Well, the message is from the institute of something”: exploring source trust of cancer-related messages on simulated facebook posts. Front Commun 5:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brown DR, Wilson RM, Boothe MA, Harris CE (2011) Cervical cancer screening among ethnically diverse black women: knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. J Natl Med Assoc 103(8):719–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Harrington N, Chen Y, O’Reilly AM, Fang CY (2021) The role of trust in HPV vaccine uptake among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States: a narrative review. AIMS Public Health 8(2):352–368. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2021027

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Limmer K, LoBiondo-Wood G, Dains J (2014) Predictors of cervical cancer screening adherence in the United States: a systematic review. J Adv Pract Oncol 5(1):31–41

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Tesfahunei HA, Ghebreyesus MS, Assefa DG et al (2021) Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus standard clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Infect Agents Cancer 16(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-021-00380-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bansil P, Wittet S, Lim JL, Winkler JL, Paul P, Jeronimo J (2014) Acceptability of self-collection sampling for HPV-DNA testing in low-resource settings: a mixed methods approach. BMC Public Health 14:596. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-596

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Rosenbaum AJ, Gage JC, Alfaro KM et al (2014) Acceptability of self-collected versus provider-collected sampling for HPV DNA testing among women in rural El Salvador. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 126:156–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith JS, Des Marais AC, Deal AM et al (2018) Mailed human papillomavirus self-collection with papanicolaou test referral for infrequently screened women in the United States. Sex Transm Dis 45(1):42–48

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Best AL, Strane A, Christie O, Bynum S, Wiltshire J (2017) Examining the influence of cost concern and awareness of low-cost health care on cancer screening among the medically underserved. J Health Care Poor Underserved 28(1):79–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith JS, Brewer NT, Saslow D et al (2013) Recommendations for a national agenda to substantially reduce cervical cancer. Cancer Causes Control 24(8):1583–1593

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jeronimo J, Perkins RB, Scalici J, Pierce JY (2019) Should self-sampling be an option for women in the United States? J Low Genit Tract Dis 23(1):54–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Broyles RW, Narine L, Brandt EN Jr, Biard-Holmes D (2000) Health risks, ability to pay, and the use of primary care: is the distribution of service effective and equitable? Prev Med 30(6):453–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. El Khoury C, Haro E, Alves M et al (2021) Patient-centered home cancer screening attitudes during COVID-19 pandemic. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 8(4):340–346. https://doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.1835

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA

    Ashvita Garg & Erika L. Thompson

  2. Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Ashvita Garg

  3. Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA

    Annalynn M. Galvin & Stacey B. Griner

  4. Department of Research, Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Annalynn M. Galvin

  5. Department of Oncology, Psychiatry and Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Zeev Rosberger

  6. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Zeev Rosberger

  7. College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Ellen M. Daley

Authors
  1. Ashvita Garg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annalynn M. Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stacey B. Griner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeev Rosberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ellen M. Daley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erika L. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AG: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization. AMG: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. SBG: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. ZR: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. EMD: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. ELT: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashvita Garg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Research ethical and patient consent

The study was approved by the North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garg, A., Galvin, A.M., Griner, S.B. et al. HPV self-sampling among women in the United States: preferences for implementation. Cancer Causes Control 35, 167–176 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01778-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01778-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation