Racial and Ethnic Differences in Acceptability of Urine and Cervico-Vaginal Sample Self-Collection for HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

Background: We compared women's acceptability of urine and cervico-vaginal sample self-collection for high-risk (oncogenic) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing and assessed whether acceptability varied across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: As part of a test accuracy study of urine-based hrHPV testing, we recruited a convenience sample of women 25-65 years of age at two colposcopy clinics in North Carolina between November 2016 and January 2019. After self-collection of urine and cervico-vaginal samples, women completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the sample collection methods. We coded open-ended questions inductively. All results are presented stratified by racial/ethnic group. Results: We included 410 women (119 Hispanic, 115 non-Hispanic Black, 154 non-Hispanic White, and 22 women with other racial identities). Most women (79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 76%-83%) had positive feelings about urine-based hrHPV testing. Women generally preferred urine (78%, 95% CI = 74%-82%) over cervico-vaginal self-collection (18%, 95% CI = 14%-22%), but the degree differed by racial/ethnic group, increasing from 75% in non-Hispanic Black to 82% in Hispanic women (p = 0.011). Most women reported at least one positive aspect of urine (89%) and cervico-vaginal self-collection (85%) for hrHPV testing with the most common positive aspect being easy sample collection, although 16% of women were concerned about performing the cervico-vaginal self-collection correctly. Conclusions: Self-collection for hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening is highly acceptable to women across different racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and most women in our study would be more likely to attend future cervical cancer screening appointments if screening were urine based. Urine-based hrHPV testing is a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Rohner, E; McGuire, FH; Liu, Y; Li, Q; Miele, K; Desai, SA; Schmitt, JW; Knittel, A; Nelson, JAE; Edelman, C; Sivaraman, V; Baker, A; Romocki, LS; Rahangdale, L; Smith, JS

Published Date

  • July 2020

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 29 / 7

Start / End Page

  • 971 - 979

PubMed ID

  • 32212991

Pubmed Central ID

  • 32212991

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1931-843X

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1089/jwh.2019.8132

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States