Self‐sampling versus reminder letter: Effects on cervical cancer screening attendance and coverage in Finland
- 29 March 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in International Journal of Cancer
- Vol. 128 (11), 2681-2687
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25581
Abstract
Optimizing attendance and coverage of organized screening is needed to reduce cervical cancer incidence to previous lower levels. In our study, all nonparticipants in organized cervical cancer screening in 2008 in Espoo, Finland were randomized to receive a self‐sampling kit (1,130 women) or a reminder letter (3,030 women). Effects on screening coverage were assessed according to the self‐reported previous Pap smear history of the participants. Participation rate in the self‐sampling arm, 29.8%, was significantly higher than in the reminder letter arm, 26.2% (adjusted relative risk for participation 1.13). Total participation in Espoo in 2008 rose significantly after the two interventions from 64.0 to 75.4%. In both arms, ∼ 20% of the participants after second intervention could be considered under screened (previous Pap smear ≥5 years ago) and thus increased screening coverage. Respectively, for 70–75%, the second intervention only provided overscreening. Participation was lowest among young age groups and immigrants, after primary invitation and after interventions. Our study shows that a second intervention for nonattendees after the first invitation is needed to optimize the attendance rates. Self‐sampling might be slightly more successful in this, but the effects on screening coverage were similar in both groups.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort studyBMJ, 2010
- Age-Specific Evaluation of Primary Human Papillomavirus Screening vs Conventional Cytology in a Randomized SettingJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- Self-sampling of the vaginal fluid at home combined with high-risk HPV testingBritish Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Prevalence of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in an organised screening population in FinlandInternational Journal of Cancer, 2008
- Screening with a primary human papillomavirus test does not increase detection of cervical cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia 3European Journal Of Cancer, 2008
- Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysisGynecologic Oncology, 2007
- High Concordance of Results of Testing for Human Papillomavirus in Cervicovaginal Samples Collected by Two Methods, with Comparison of a Novel Self-Sampling Device to a Conventional Endocervical BrushJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2006
- Routine cervical screening with primary HPV testing and cytology triage protocol in a randomised settingBritish Journal of Cancer, 2005
- Easy SAS Calculations for Risk or Prevalence Ratios and DifferencesAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysisSexually Transmitted Infections, 2005