These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Community-randomised controlled trial embedded in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study: human papillomavirus self-sampling versus Papanicolaou cytology.
    Author: Zehbe I, Jackson R, Wood B, Weaver B, Escott N, Severini A, Krajden M, Bishop L, Morrisseau K, Ogilvie G, Burchell AN, Little J.
    Journal: BMJ Open; 2016 Oct 08; 6(10):e011754. PubMed ID: 27855089.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The incidence of cervical cancer is up to 20-fold higher among First Nations women in Canada than the general population, probably due to lower participation in screening. Offering human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in place of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing may eventually increase screening participation and reduce cervical cancer rates in this population. DESIGN: A community-randomised controlled screening trial. SETTING: First Nations communities in Northwest Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged between 25 and 69, living in Robinson Superior Treaty First Nations. The community was the unit of randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: Women were asked to complete a questionnaire and have screening by HPV self-sampling (arm A) or Pap testing (arm B). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of women who participated in cervical screening. RANDOMISATION: Community clusters were randomised to include approximately equivalent numbers of women in each arm. RESULTS: 6 communities were randomised to arm A and 5 to arm B. One community withdrew, leaving 5 communities in each group (834 eligible women). Participation was <25%. Using clustered intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, initial and cumulative averaged uptakes in arm A were 1.4-fold (20% vs 14.3%, p=0.628) and 1.3-fold (20.6% vs 16%, p=0.694) higher compared to arm B, respectively. Corresponding per protocol (PP) analysis indicates 2.2-fold (22.9% vs 10.6%, p=0.305) and 1.6-fold (22.9% vs 14.1%, p=0.448) higher uptakes in arm A compared to arm B. Screening uptake varied between communities (range 0-62.1%). Among women who completed a questionnaire (18.3% in arm A, 21.7% in arm B), the screening uptake was 1.8-fold (ITT; p=0.1132) or 3-fold (PP; p<0.01) higher in arm A versus arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Pap and HPV self-sampling were compared in a marginalised, Canadian population. Results indicated a preference for self-sampling. More research on how to reach underscreened Indigenous women is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84617261.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]