Back

Cervicovaginal and anal self-sampling for HPV testing in a transgender and gender diverse population assigned female at birth: comfort, difficulty, and willingness to use

Welsh, E. F.; Andrus, E. C.; Sandler, C. B.; Moravek, M. B.; Stroumsa, D.; Kattari, S. K.; Walline, H. M.; Goudsmit, C. M.; Brouwer, A.

2023-08-16 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.08.15.23294132 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTransgender and gender diverse (TGD) people assigned female at birth (AFAB) face numerous barriers to preventive care, including for HPV and cervical cancer screening. Self-sampling options may expand access to HPV testing for TGD people AFAB. MethodsWe recruited TGD individuals AFAB to collect cervicovaginal and anal specimens at-home using self-sampling for HPV testing, and individuals reported their perceptions of self-sampling. Associations between demographic and health characteristics and each of comfort of use, ease of use, and willingness to use self-sampling were estimated using robust Poisson regression. ResultsThe majority of the 101 participants who completed the study reported that the cervicovaginal self-swab was not uncomfortable (68.3%) and not difficult to use (86.1%), and nearly all (96.0%) were willing to use the swab in the future. Fewer participants found the anal swab to not be uncomfortable (47.5%), but most participants still found the anal swab to not be difficult to use (70.2%) and were willing to use the swab in the future (89.1%). Participants were more willing to use either swab if they had not seen a medical professional in the past year. About 70% of participants who reported negative experiences with either self-swab were still willing to use that swab in the future. ConclusionsTGD AFAB individuals were willing to use and preferred self-sampling methods for cervicovaginal and anal HPV testing. Developing clinically approved self-sampling options for cancer screening could expand access to HPV screening for TGD AFAB populations.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.