Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: In March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30-65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: 'no intervention'; 'recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and 'self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing. RESULTS: Participation was higher in the 'self-sampling' than in the 'no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and 'recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the 'self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8[euro ] and 63.2[euro ] for the 'recall' and 'self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the 'no intervention' group. CONCLUSIONS: Offering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haguenoer et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: