A Mail-Based HPV Self-Collection Program to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening in Appalachia: Results of a Group Randomized Trial

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of mail-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection programs for increasing cervical cancer screening, few have been evaluated in the United States. We report the results of a mail-based HPV self-collection program for underscreened women living in Appalachia. METHODS: We conducted a group randomized trial from 2021 to 2022 in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virgnia. Participants were women of ages 30 to 64 years who were underscreened for cervical cancer and from a participating health system. Participants in the intervention group (n = 464) were mailed an HPV self-collection kit followed by telephone-based patient navigation (if needed), and participants in the usual care group (n = 338) were mailed a reminder letter to get a clinic-based cervical cancer screening test. Generalized linear mixed models compared cervical cancer screening between the study groups. RESULTS: Overall, 14.9% of participants in the intervention group and 5.0% of participants in the usual care group were screened for cervical cancer. The mail-based HPV self-collection intervention increased cervical cancer screening compared with the usual care group (OR, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-5.72; P = 0.005). One or more high-risk HPV types were detected in 10.5% of the returned HPV self-collection kits. Among the participants in the intervention group whom patient navigators attempted to contact, 44.2% were successfully reached. CONCLUSIONS: HPV self-collection increased cervical cancer screening, and future efforts are needed to determine how to optimize such programs, including the delivery of patient navigation services. IMPACT: Mail-based HPV self-collection programs are a viable strategy for increasing cervical cancer screening among underscreened women living in Appalachia.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.